sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Matt Austern
lately, but most of the comments seem to have been positive, so I will
probably post a CFV in a week or two. First, though, we need a little
bit more detail on who the moderators will be, and what the guidelines
for posting will be.
In a day or two, I'll be posting a set of guidelines for articles
submitted to sci.physics.research, but first, here's the proposed
panel of moderators.
John Baez (jb...@math.mit.edu)
Dale Bass (cr...@virginia.edu)
Bill Johnson (m...@beta.lanl.gov)
Lee Sawyer (saw...@utahep.uta.edu)
If one moderator has to quit, the others will choose a replacement.
The intent is that this panel be reasonably diverse in terms of
research interests; each of these people wrote up a "microCV" that
tells a bit about their background and what they do.
----------------------------------------
John C. Baez
BA mathematics Princeton U. 1982
PhD mathematics MIT 1986
Associate Prof. Dept. of Math. U. C. Riverside
Constructive quantum field theory, nonlinear wave equations, and
the relationship of knot theory to quantum gravity
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Cameron 'dale' Bass
B.S. Aerospace Engineering, UVa
Graduate Research Assistant, University of Virginia;
Ph.D. expected early 1993 in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering;
Research interests: fluid dynamics, electromagnetism, acoustics
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Bill Johnson
Staff member [project leader] at Los Alamos National Laboratory;
Ph.D., nuclear chemistry, Univ. of Rochester, 1979;
Research interests: basic and applied nuclear physics, nuclear safeguards
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
H. Lee Sawyer, Jr
B.S. Northeast Louisiana University (1985)
Ph.D. Florida State University (1991)
Experimental high energy physicist (we haven't perfected them yet...)
Member of the E711, ALEPH, D0, and SDC experimental collaborations.
----------------------------------------
--
Matthew Austern Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618 crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
aus...@lbl.bitnet faction, an army! If you don't have any
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu solutions, become a part of the problem!
MR...@psuvm.psu.edu
Merritt) says:
>...
>
>$ Dale Bass (cr...@virginia.edu)
>
>I reject DB as a moderator I suggest another should be chosen.
>My reason is that based on Mr. Bass' contribution to this group
>I find that his posts are more noise than signal.
> ----------------------------------------
>
>I find Mr. Bass' credentials unreproachable and I don't object
>to his moderation on that basis. My objection is that in as much as
>a moderator's function is to improve the S/N I fundementally disagree
>with his views (based on his past post) as to what is signal and
>what is noise.
>
Well, I accept Dale Base as a moderator. I think he has reponded
appropriately to posts with and without content, as well as to
personal attacks. He has demonstrated a broad base of
knowledge. (I was actually surprised to learn that he was not
a tenured faculty member :>). I also value his posts
for their entertainment value (perhaps because I have not been
a target).
Surely there will be a (limited) appeal process for rejected articles
in the new newsgroup. That should satisfy any concerns about a
particular moderator's predispositions.
-mike gallis
Jim Horne
>
> In a day or two, I'll be posting a set of guidelines for articles
> submitted to sci.physics.research, but first, here's the proposed
> panel of moderators.
> John Baez (jb...@math.mit.edu)
> Dale Bass (cr...@virginia.edu)
> Bill Johnson (m...@beta.lanl.gov)
> Lee Sawyer (saw...@utahep.uta.edu)
> If one moderator has to quit, the others will choose a replacement.
>
> The intent is that this panel be reasonably diverse in terms of
> research interests; each of these people wrote up a "microCV" that
> tells a bit about their background and what they do.
>
Mostly a good cast of characters, but like a few other people, I'm not sure
whether Dale Bass would be a good moderator. He shares the honor of being in my
kill file with Abian, Sarfatti, Beckmann, van Flandern, and Hannu Poropudas.
Dale is not a raving lunatic like the other five, but certainly was one of the
major contributors to the noise problem in sci.physics. Besides, he's supposed
to be finishing up his Ph.D. Will he really be able to devote even the small
amount of time necessary for the moderation? I know I was much too busy to do
anything else while I was finishing my Ph.D.
[note the followup to news.groups, where this discussion should take place]
--
Jim Horne j...@waldzell.physics.yale.edu
"We Americans, we're a simple people... but piss us off,
and we'll bomb your cities." -- Robin Williams
Richard M. Mathews
>mer...@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) says:
>>I reject DB as a moderator I suggest another should be chosen.
>>My reason is that based on Mr. Bass' contribution to this group
>>I find that his posts are more noise than signal.
>Well, I accept Dale Base as a moderator....
>Surely there will be a (limited) appeal process for rejected articles
>in the new newsgroup. That should satisfy any concerns about a
>particular moderator's predispositions.
I am not so worried that DB might reject good articles as I am that he
will let through garbage. Of 10 postings by DB currently sitting in our
news spool, I count only 2 which I would consider on topic but not endless
rehashing.
Followups to news.groups.
Richard M. Mathews D efend
E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
Richard...@West.Sun.COM I ndependence
.
:
: Mostly a good cast of characters, but like a few other people, I'm not sure
: kill file with Abian, Sarfatti, Beckmann, van Flandern, and Hannu Poropudas.
: Dale is not a raving lunatic like the other five, but certainly was one of the
: major contributors to the noise problem in sci.physics.
tenacity to bother with some of the noise-makers. Besides, the other
3 are nice guys: we need somebody like Dale who can deal with
Sarfatti. :) My vote for Dale.
Matt Austern
> Dale does tend to flame on but if he attempts to do so on
> sci.physics.research I think the rest of us moderators can be counted on
> to take action quite firmly. (However, I have no idea if there is an
> institutional mechanism for booting out bad co-moderators of newsgroups,
> other than good old peer pressure.)
>
> I would prefer it if even moderators, yes even myself, had to follow
> normal submission procedures on sci.physics.research.
>
> And hopefully Dale will do whatever flaming he needs to do on sci.physics
> rather than sci.physics.research. :-)
Dale certainly doesn't need me to stick up for him, but since I'm the
one who posted the article with the proposed panel, I thought I should
say just a bit about what I had in mind.
First of all, I don't expect that the personal opinions of the
moderators will be as important in this group as they might be in some
others. The general consensus seems to be that the group should be
"lightly" moderated, so what's really important is that the moderator
be scientifically competent. I don't think there's any doubt that
this is true of all four of the people on this panel. Of course,
nobody is an expert on everything, which is one reason that the
moderators were chosen to have a range of different research
interests. There are still a great many fields that aren't
represented by anyone on the panel (astronomy, solid state
theory,...), but there's nothing to stop the moderators from asking
other people for expert advice. For that matter, there's nothing to
stop the panel from being expanded in the future if that turns out to
be necessary.
Second: in those rare occasions when personal opinions do become
important, I believe it is important to have a diversity of opinions
represented on the moderation panel. All of the people on the panel
have strong opinions on some issues. So do I. (In fact, attentive
readers of the Net will probably remember occasions when I have had
disputes with some of these people on this newsgroup...) Again, I
don't think there's anything wrong with having strong opinions. One
of the reasons for having several moderators is so that no one person
imposes his or her opinions on everybody.
I think that a moderated physics newsgroup is necessary if we are to
have any degree of real participation in Net discussions by the
physics community, and I think that this panel will be able to do a
good job.
Sean Merritt
In article <1993Jan7.0...@galois.mit.edu> jb...@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.2...@cs.yale.edu> j...@waldzell.physics.yale.edu (Jim Horne) writes:
>
>>Mostly a good cast of characters, but like a few other people, I'm not sure
>>whether Dale Bass would be a good moderator.
>
>Dale does tend to flame on but if he attempts to do so on
>sci.physics.research I think the rest of us moderators can be counted on
>to take action quite firmly. (However, I have no idea if there is an
>institutional mechanism for booting out bad co-moderators of newsgroups,
>other than good old peer pressure.)
# I'll second this, and go a bit further: If I had any reservations about the
# ability of the other co-moderators to evaluate contributions to the new group
# fairly and honorably, I would withdraw as one of the co-moderators myself, or
# insist that the suspect co-moderator do so.
Baez has posted similar feelings. Fine you all share mutual admiration,
or at least respect. The will of the majority is however where
the power of the right of imposing imprimatur privilige.
The fact that you all may accept each other is has less weight
than that of everybody who may choose to participate.
I am not closed minded, I do think there is a way of appeasing those
who have concerns about DB...
# I am *not* withdrawing as a co-moderator, nor am I suggesting that Dale or
# the others should do so.
I am suggesting that if DB doesn't someone else should. 3 people would
always reach a majority decision. With four there is the probability
of deadlock.(however slim it does exist)
# Any questions?
No, it seems clear to me that you accept DB as a moderator. I do not based
on the original post explination of how things are to be.
* * *
# Part of professionalism in any field is the ability to lay aside personal
# grievances, personality quirks, etc., and do the job. The considerable e-mail
# that the prospective co-moderators have exchanged demonstrates clearly to me
# that we all have a strong interest in doing this job right. I too get
# irritated at some of what Dale says in sci.physics, but sci.physics.research is
# going to be something different, and I am confident of his ability to put all
# that stuff behind him and function honorably as a co-moderator. If I wasn't,
# I wouldn't make the above statements.
Fine words indeed. For the most part I agree with them,
and if there are only 3 people I feel more comfortable with Dale
being one of them. If there are 4 I feel much less so.
-sjm
--
Sean J. Merritt | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence
Dept of Physics Boston University| and an appeal to the essence of being."
mer...@macro.bu.edu | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Steve Leffler
>I would prefer it if even moderators, yes even myself, had to follow
>normal submission procedures on sci.physics.research.
I agree. I think that if we're going to have a panel of co-moderators, it
would be reasonable to require that a posting by any one of those moderators
be approved by someone else on the panel.
---Steven Leffler
lef...@physics.ubc.ca
John C. Baez
>I am suggesting that if DB doesn't someone else should. 3 people would
>always reach a majority decision. With four there is the probability
>of deadlock.(however slim it does exist)
Seems to me Merritt is taking this business too seriously. I promise
that if such a deadlock ever arose I would bow out, since I certainly
don't have the time for protracted arguments about whether an article
gets published in sci.physics.research.
Blair P. Houghton
> I don't agree. He is just the only one with the patience and
>tenacity to bother with some of the noise-makers.
Didn't he just aggravate the "Religion & Physics Don't Mix"
debate by using his Physicist reputation in a Religious pose?
>Besides, the other 3 are nice guys: we need somebody like
>Dale who can deal with Sarfatti. :) My vote for Dale.
Well, heck, if that's a perquisite of office then I'll
announce my candidacy right now.
--Blair
"Hi, Jack!"
John Snyder
I don't see anyone here representing the Condensed Matter Physics community,
either theoretical or experimental. Is this by design, or did no Solid
State people volunteer?
P.S. No, I don't think I'm volunteering
SCOTT I CHASE
I think that the important point is that the rules for handling various
cases that may arise be well publicized and thought out before the new
group gets going. I have no doubt that this will happen.
Regarding objections to Dale as moderator:
Since I have frequently wrangled with Dale in this newsgroup, and my
silence might be misconstrued, I would like to publicly state that I think
that Dale is highly qualified to act as moderator, and that in spite of
our frequent differences on matters of policy and other "soft" subjects
I have no doubt that he is intellectually honest, able, and willing
to moderate the new group according to the rules set down by the
community.
I too have had my unhappiness with Dale's "style." He sometimes keeps
threads alive longer than I think appropriate, and he sometimes puts
appearances ahead of content when debating. He can be an artful
argumenter, skillfully employing misdirection and a handful of other
tricks to avoid getting cornered.
However, I am not without my own social flaws, and will not support
any judgement of Dale or any of the other moderators on the basis of a
"popularity contest" mentality. Dale has earned my respect by
consistently demonstrating that on matters of physics he is careful,
thoughtful, and knowledgeable. It seems to me that I can remember a
rather large group of threads in which Dale has been a voice of reason,
if not the only voice of reason. I think that he has contributed
materially to our physics discussions on a regular basis. In fact he
was doing so well before I ever joined the group.
The problem seems to be that at least a few people think that Dale has
contributed to the noise which has forced us to create the moderated
group in the first place, and that this disqualifies him from acting
as moderator. Personally, I do not see it this way. It seems
that some people are angry at him, and will take it out on him
by opposing his moderatorship. But I have yet to see a credible
and specific concern raised regarding Dale's qualifications or
intentions. Until I do, I will continue to support him.
-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase "It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SIC...@CSA2.LBL.GOV although I have no right to say so, having
been a single cell so long ago myself that I
have no memory at all of that stage of my
life." - Lewis Thomas
John Sidles
>>There hasn't been very much discussion about sci.physics.research
>>lately, but most of the comments seem to have been positive, so I will
>>probably post a CFV in a week or two.
for sci.physics.research? Except for the prospective moderators
themselves, who else is calling for new group? Is there any evidence
that it is a substantial fraction of sci.physics readers?
>>First, though, we need a little
>>bit more detail on who the moderators will be, and what the guidelines
>>for posting will be.
>>
>>In a day or two, I'll be posting a set of guidelines for articles
>>submitted to sci.physics.research, but first, here's the proposed
>>panel of moderators.
>> John Baez (jb...@math.mit.edu)
>> Dale Bass (cr...@virginia.edu)
>> Bill Johnson (m...@beta.lanl.gov)
>> Lee Sawyer (saw...@utahep.uta.edu)
>>If one moderator has to quit, the others will choose a replacement.
>>
I hope these guys are not all scientologists! There would be no
way to replace them. Sounds like a prescription for a self-perpetuating
aristocracy to me. Good thing the Constitution isn't set up this way.
If these are the candidates, then let's hear their platforms!
Specifically, let each candidate review the last week's submissions
and tell whether they're acceptable or not (in a line or two), then
post the reviews.
I am curious what fraction of the current postings will be deemed
"rejectable". If the rejected fraction is small, then why do we
need sci.physics.research? And if the rejected fraction is large,
then why are we setting up such an exclusionary newsgroup?
I am also curious about the inter-rater correlation between
moderators. If the inter-rater correlation is high, do we really
need or want such inflexible acceptance criteria? And if the
correlation is rather small (as might reasonably be expected), do
we really want to mandate an evaluation which has a large noise
component?
So do the evaluations "blind", boys! And don't be afraid to post
them... let the masses see how the proposed system will work. Why
theorize about how well sci.physics.research will work, when it is
reasonably easy to gather and post the experimental data?
What bothers me most about sci.physics.research is that it's main
function seems to be (or could become) one of exclusion, in contrast
to other other specialty newsgroups (e.g., sci.math.numerics),
which have sharply deliminted subject areas. Perhaps I'm wrong...
but polemics won't convince me. So let's see the data.
As usual when social engineering is proposed, the proponents include
those who will enjoy higher status under the new regime. It is
remarkable that the above objections, which are only common sense,
have not been addressed by any of the presumptive moderators, other
than by hand-waving reassurances.
In summary, there is a substantial down-side to forming a new group.
Why meddle with the current system, which works OK? If we want to
improve sci.physics, let's do it the old-fashioned way, namely, by
posting interesting physics.
Sincerely... John Sidles
brett mcinnes
out to all sites receiving sci.physics. For example, I cannot get
sci.math.research here.
Thomas Koenig
>If there hasn't been much discussion, what does that say about the need
>for sci.physics.research? Except for the prospective moderators
>themselves, who else is calling for new group? Is there any evidence
>that it is a substantial fraction of sci.physics readers?
I'm not a sci.physics reader, but I will read sci.physics.research.
--
Thomas Koenig, ig...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig...@dkauni2.bitnet
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic
diagram.
DOUGLAS CRAIGEN
>In article <1993Jan7.0...@nuscc.nus.sg> matm...@nuscc.nus.sg (.) writes:
>> I don't agree. He is just the only one with the patience and
>>tenacity to bother with some of the noise-makers.
>Didn't he just aggravate the "Religion & Physics Don't Mix"
>debate by using his Physicist reputation in a Religious pose?
Why do you always claim that he is religious? He stated many times
in that debate that he was an atheist. Those who didn't follow this debate
(and who can blame them?) would not be aware that it consisted largely of
you and Dale insulting each other. It finally came to an end with his
announcement that he would stop, i.e. in the end he showed more committment
to noise reduction than you did. You are hardly in a position to take the
high moral ground here.
===================================================================
Doug Craigen, Department of Physics, Acadia University,
Wolfville, N.S., B0P 1X0, (902) 542 - 2201 x150
Da seaweed is always greena
In somebody else's lake
-Sebastian (the crab in "The Little Mermaid")
Jarle Brinchmann
In article <1993Jan8.0...@nuscc.nus.sg>, matm...@nuscc.nus.sg (brett mcinnes) writes:
|>Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,sci.misc
|>From: matm...@nuscc.nus.sg (brett mcinnes)
|>Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
|>
|>Incidentally, I hope that it is possible to ensure that the new group goes
|>out to all sites receiving sci.physics. For example, I cannot get
|>sci.math.research here.
|>
Just ask about getting it and it will surely pop up. (Some sites has
a policy that groups as alt.sex hiearchy and such shall not be available)
but sci.* groups are always welcome (I hope :-)
Jarle.
---------------------------------------
Internet: jar...@medusa.uio.no
or Jarle.Br...@astro.uio.no
---------------------------------------
John C. Baez
I am curious what fraction of the current postings will be deemed
"rejectable". If the rejected fraction is small, then why do we
need sci.physics.research? And if the rejected fraction is large,
then why are we setting up such an exclusionary newsgroup?
It will be fairly large. We will be excluding such things as: Abian's
endless thread, discussions of religion and politics (which threads on
sci.physics often turn into), endless repeats of questions that are in
the FAQ, re-re-rehashes of discussions ofthe interpretations of quantum
mechanics, etc.. (See Matt Austern's official proposal for more
details.) The reason for setting up a newsgroup that excludes this sort
of thing is primarily that lots of people would prefer not to wade
through the above things to find what they consider interesting. (Of
course, lots of people *like* such things, and sci.physics would still
be around.) In particular, it appears that many research-level
physicists are turned off by sci.physics as it stands. This keeps the
level of sci.physics rather low in a kind of vicious circle. In short,
the reason for sci.physics.research is similar to why physics
conferences are not usually held in bus stations. (I am not saying that
sci.physics.research will be equivalent to a physics conference, nor
that sci.physics is a bus station. Just that a certain amount of
filtering can make for discussions that are more interesting to to
experts in a subject.)
As for your proposed trial test of sci.physics.research moderators, I
will leave it to Matt Austern, who is leading this effort, to decide
what he thinks. It'd be fine by me. I expect that there'll be a
certain amount of conferring among moderators at first to work out
sensible standards, by the way.
Sean Merritt
Sean Merritt writes:
>I am suggesting that if DB doesn't someone else should. 3 people would
>always reach a majority decision. With four there is the probability
>of deadlock.(however slim it does exist)
# Seems to me Merritt is taking this business too seriously. I promise
# that if such a deadlock ever arose I would bow out, since I certainly
# don't have the time for protracted arguments about whether an article
# gets published in sci.physics.research.
Seems to me you are not taking this seriously enough. If you were to
"bow out" I don't consider you a good canidate for the job.
I have read fine articles by all the proposed moderators. Of the
four there is one whom I see as a major contributor(at times)
to what is wrong with sci.physics. This is a legitimate complaint.
The other thing I am "serious" about if that if take the discussion
from a state of Anarchy(because I will agree we can raise the
level of participation by people who have something valuable to
add), let it be a state of Democracy(although it is a represntitive one).
This requires accountability.
I'm ready to vote on sci.physics.research as it stands.
As I understand it there needs to be a 2/3 pro majority and
at least 100 more people voting pro then con.
Is this correct?
Andre Roberge
in favour of creating sci.physics.research, why not try to proceed as
fast as possible to create such a group, give a chance to the proposed
moderators to prove their worth as such and see what happen?...
[Perhaps to keep people happy, one could include a clause in the chapter
of this group for having a mechanism to deal with replacing an
unsuitable moderator -- as decided in a proper forum....]
I'm one of the research physicist who's been following sci.physics on
a *very* irregular basis, mostly because I was turned off by lots
of #### that appeared there. I can't wait for a Call For Vote to support
such a group and enjoy "good physics" posts. Who knows, I might get
the nerves to ask publicly one of the moderator to explain what he meant
where he said something to the effect that the Dirac sea explanation
was not needed with the proper use of C* algebra (or something like that).
Perhaps he already did, but I wasn't reading sci.physics at the time....
I would also like to add that I believe it will be *very* easy to find
more qualified and interested moderators (if the need arise) once this
group is set-up.
Andre Roberge
Matt Austern
> I don't see anyone here representing the Condensed Matter Physics community,
> either theoretical or experimental. Is this by design, or did no Solid
> State people volunteer?
No volunteers when I posted the initial call for volunteers; I even
tried to solicit a condensed matter volunteer by email.
There have been some volunteers more recently, after I posted this
list with the proposed panel of moderators. My feeling is that at
this point things are far enough along that it's probably better to
stick with the panel we have, instead of expanding it.
It may be necessary to add more people in the future, or, for that
matter, to replace a moderator who has to quit. If that does become
necessary, I certainly agree that a condensed matter physicist (or a
many-body person) would be a good addition. For that matter, so would
someone from the astrophysics community---another notable omission on
the panel.
Richard M. Mathews
>The problem seems to be that at least a few people think that Dale has
>contributed to the noise which has forced us to create the moderated
>group in the first place, and that this disqualifies him from acting
>as moderator. Personally, I do not see it this way. It seems
>that some people are angry at him, and will take it out on him
>by opposing his moderatorship.
I have no anger whatsoever towards Dale. I do have a concern about
whether he is the best filter to get rid of flame wars, but I would
not go so far as to say this disqualifies him. In fact, I hope that
the concerns raised here are themselves adequate to serve as a reminder
to all moderators that flame wars should really not be tolerated. I see
no reason not to go ahead with the CFV, to create the group as proposed,
and to see how it goes.
>But I have yet to see a credible
>and specific concern raised regarding Dale's qualifications or
>intentions. Until I do, I will continue to support him.
There is no concern whatsoever about his technical qualifications. It
is hard to criticize his intentions when he has not made any statement
about them. All we can review is his past history, and that history
shows 80% of his postings to be noise (by my count of the past two
weeks' postings). I see this as a credible and specific *concern* but
not as a credible and specific *problem*.
Finally, I switched from physics to computers years ago. While I might
vote yes on the new group to allow me the chance to listen in on the
ramblings of working physicists, I would never vote no and deny those
physicists a chance to decide for themselves whether they want such a
group. I hope others in my shoes will act similarly.
Richard M. Mathews Lietuva laisva = Free Lithuania
Brivu Latviju = Free Latvia
Richard...@West.Sun.COM Eesti vabaks = Free Estonia
WE DID IT!!!
Blair P. Houghton
> Why do you always claim that he is religious?
Because he believes God can exist and that's faith in God
and that's all it takes.
>He stated many times in that debate that he was an atheist.
He stated only that it was folly to be an atheist, and that
anyone who tried to analyze religion scientifically was
barking up the tree of the forbidden fruit.
>Those who didn't follow this debate
>(and who can blame them?) would not be aware that it consisted largely of
>you and Dale insulting each other.
You comprehended none of it, apparently. The insults were
merely a deserved aside on a tour of Physics, Theology,
Philosophy, and Archaeology. The fact that I was doing
more of the insulting is merely a reflection of the fact
that I'm better at it and he's afraid to do it, being a
creature of small imagination, less courage, and no
tolerance and that he was being de facto insulting by
misinterpreting virtually everything I said.
>It finally came to an end with his announcement that he
>would stop, i.e. in the end he showed more committment to
>noise reduction than you did.
He ran away with his nose bloodied, screaming "I'm not gonna
play with you any more!" after three weeks of hundred-line
postings and you call that commitment?
>You are hardly in a position to take the
>high moral ground here.
A clue you deserve:
1. Fuck you. This is a fucking conflict and I'll take any
fucking ground I want, you fucking moron.
A clue you don't deserve:
2. I'm taking only the high amoral ground; I simply believe in
the evidence when I see it, not when I think it might exist.
The evidence is that Corky Bass is proactive in
crackpottery and lacking in comprehension (seems to be a
theme, this penchant for missing the point; perhaps it's
part of the Constitution and Bylaws of the alt.fan.dale-bass
club).
The comprehension is that he's unfit to judge the fitness
of the writings of others for posting to the net, in that
he's likely to reject those with which he disagrees citing
purely stylistic grounds and he's likely to pass those with
which we all disagree if he accepts them or thinks he can
refute them to his own aggrandizement.
I.e., a flame is not worthy of rejection merely because
it is a flame; and, one's own beliefs are not a sufficient
rationale for laudatory propagation of others' accidental
conformance to those beliefs.
Corky doesn't get this, and neither do you.
He's a despotic influence, not an objective one. I don't
think the others could necessarily be perfectly objective,
but they haven't evidenced in the past that they are prone
to injecting their own subjective psychologies consistently
into their selection criteria for pronouncements on the net.
Moderation of free discussion in itself is a disastrous
occurrence; it eliminates from the discourse valuable clues
to the meaning and intent of ambiguous ideas, and all ideas
are ambiguous without a mathematical formalism (see a book
by R. Carnap, _The_Logical_Syntax_of_Language_, 1937).
Objectivity is impossible without the creation of a set of
rules for objectivity, and the creation of the set of rules
is necessarily subjective (or, worse, political, which is
what will eventually occur here when someone puts together
a "charter" and the net "votes" on it).
In the end, in the absence of a legal conflict (someone's
rights are being sullied or someone's health and safety
are put at risk) the only policy worth implementing is
no policy.
In the beginning, however, we should endeavor not even to
create a policy which promises to be a contradiction of our
own interests.
--Blair
"If you don't understand
this, then how did you
ever learn to read? and
why can't my computer
read even that poorly?"
John C. Baez
>Presuming that people criticising the proposed panel of moderators are
>in favour of creating sci.physics.research, why not try to proceed as
>fast as possible to create such a group, give a chance to the proposed
>moderators to prove their worth as such and see what happen?...
I think we are proceeding as fast as possible. Presumably Austern will
call for a vote any minute now.
>I'm one of the research physicist who's been following sci.physics on
>a *very* irregular basis, mostly because I was turned off by lots
>of #### that appeared there.
Good - I *know* there are a lot of such people, but for some mysterious
reason very few of them are visible on sci.physics, so it is hard to
prove their existence. :-)
>I can't wait for a Call For Vote to support
>such a group and enjoy "good physics" posts. Who knows, I might get
>the nerves to ask publicly one of the moderator to explain what he meant
>where he said something to the effect that the Dirac sea explanation
>was not needed with the proper use of C* algebra (or something like that).
>Perhaps he already did, but I wasn't reading sci.physics at the time....
Please do ask (when sci.physics.research is in place)! Or maybe I will
simply go ahead and answer. One doesn't really need C*-algebras, by the
way, one just needs a good understanding of the role of complex
structures -- that is, the number i -- in quantum mechanics.
I'm planning on writing some advanced expository articles on
sci.physics.research -- if and only if it is created. Hopefully this
will help jumpstart it. Complex structures is one nice topic. I also
want to talk about Crane and Yetter's amazing new paper on 4-dimensional
topological quantum field theories.
Steve Leffler
there. Followups have been redirected to news.groups, where this
discussion belongs.]
sid...@stein.u.washington.edu (John Sidles) writes:
>>In article <MATT.93J...@physics2.berkeley.edu> ma...@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>>>There hasn't been very much discussion about sci.physics.research
>>>lately, but most of the comments seem to have been positive, so I will
>>>probably post a CFV in a week or two.
>
>If there hasn't been much discussion, what does that say about the need
>for sci.physics.research? Except for the prospective moderators
>themselves, who else is calling for new group? Is there any evidence
>that it is a substantial fraction of sci.physics readers?
I for one am calling for a new group, and it seems to me there are quite
a few others who feel the same, besides the proposed moderators. There
certainly is a fair amount of discussion going on in news.groups now on
this topic.
There is no reason why this proposal should need to be supported by
a substantial fraction of current sci.physics readers, since the new
newsgroup will not replace sci.physics, but will supplement it. The goal
is not necessarily to get everyone on sci.physics involved, but rather
to create a group which will meet the needs of a certain subgroup of
sci.physics readers, and hopefully attract many who don't currently read
sci.physics because of the poor signal to noise ratio there. The only
important issue is thus whether or not there will be sufficient message
volume on the new group to justify its existence.
>I am curious what fraction of the current postings will be deemed
>"rejectable". If the rejected fraction is small, then why do we
>need sci.physics.research? And if the rejected fraction is large,
>then why are we setting up such an exclusionary newsgroup?
This is a useless objection, since anything which can't be posted on
sci.physics.research can still be posted on sci.physics. The fraction of
sci.physics postings which would not qualify for the new group is
undoubtably quite large, as the flame wars and crackpot threads alone
constitute a large fraction of the volume on sci.physics. Having a
group where one can talk about physics without such clutter is a good
thing.
>In summary, there is a substantial down-side to forming a new group.
>Why meddle with the current system, which works OK? If we want to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>improve sci.physics, let's do it the old-fashioned way, namely, by
>posting interesting physics.
The answer to your question, is that many people currently feel that
the current system is NOT working "OK". Serious discussion of physics
is being stifled, and serious physicists are discouraged from participating
in sci.physics by the large amount of noise there. This problem will
not be corrected simply by "posting more interesting physics", even if you
could somehow find a way to make the existing readers do so.
---Steven Leffler
lef...@physics.ubc.ca
Thomas Koenig
>
>Just a thought, quite a few agree that there is too few research level
>postings, but how many researchers are aware of usenet news ?
I think this is one reason why the sci.* - newsgroups are not working
very well; few researchers actually know about news, or would care to use it.
Those who do are not very likely to discuss the things they are about to
put into their next paper before ever submitting it (I know I don't).
Apart from a few fields which seem to capture the non- specialist's
attention, such as Quantum Theory or Relativity, most research is done
in narrow fields which outsiders are likely to find very dull, so
discussions about actual research are rare.
The main use of these groups I see is asking advice about, and
discussing, secondary techniques, or for asking for references after a
literature research has failed. The result is a newsgroup like sci.engr.chem,
in which the only thing likely to appear are requests for information, or
maybe some general discussions related to chemical engineering.
I still think that Usenet is a valuable resource, I'm just not too sure
that the sci.* - groups have much of a chance to work as envisioned by
some...
William Johnson
with by other people already, but I will hack away at them anyway ...
>If there hasn't been much discussion, what does that say about the need
>for sci.physics.research?
Very little; mainly what it says is that people don't post much over the
Christmas holidays. Check out the total sci.physics traffic during the
ten days before Matt's posting for evidence of that. There certainly
has been plenty of discussion of sci.physics.research since ...
>I hope these guys are not all scientologists! There would be no
>way to replace them. Sounds like a prescription for a self-perpetuating
>aristocracy to me. Good thing the Constitution isn't set up this way.
Well, I for one am most emphatically not a Scientologist. :-)
The question of how to pick replacement moderators is a fair one, and I am
not sure the method proposed by Matt is clearly the best one. However, it
is likely to be at least serviceable and will ensure that *somebody* picks
up the slack, which is more likely to be a concern than whether that
somebody is acceptable to the readership. Some moderated groups have died,
or at least hibernated, for lack of a moderator ... I think it would be
appropriate for the remaining co-moderators to post the names of suggested
replacements and see what response they get before actually picking
someone, but I also think that in practice the whole process will be less
contentious than it might appear.
>Specifically, let each candidate review the last week's submissions
>and tell whether they're acceptable or not (in a line or two), then
>post the reviews.
Fat chance. I'm a working physicist and have more important things to do --
a phrase that one will hear (and I have heard) repeatedly from working
physicists in connection with sci.physics. I devoutly hope that the volume
of articles submitted for sci.physics.research, let alone accepted, will be
well under half of what it is in sci.physics, and even *that* volume is
likely great enough to tax the available time of the four co-moderators that
have already stepped up, even with the work load split four ways. And you
want to undo that split, pile seven days' worth of stuff together in an
overtrafficked group, and have us do a review?
I wouldn't mind doing one *day's* worth of articles, however, if the other
prospective co-moderators are agreeable and if some of those articles (the
ones that wouldn't appear in sci.physics.research anyway owing to their
administrative nature, like this one ...) aren't reviewed. The timing is
somewhat unfortunate, as I will be on travel or otherwise unavailable for
much of next week, but if we can agree on a target day and a date for
submitting our reviews (at least two or three days later), it might be
feasible.
>I am curious what fraction of the current postings will be deemed
>"rejectable". If the rejected fraction is small, then why do we
>need sci.physics.research? And if the rejected fraction is large,
>then why are we setting up such an exclusionary newsgroup?
It would *certainly* be fairly large. Matt has already answered your
question, so I won't.
>Why
>theorize about how well sci.physics.research will work, when it is
>reasonably easy to gather and post the experimental data?
Problem is, the data are bogus, because the experiment is inappropriate.
The whole point of sci.physics.research is to provide a venue for
postings of a different nature than those currently dominating sci.physics.
>What bothers me most about sci.physics.research is that it's main
>function seems to be (or could become) one of exclusion, in contrast
>to other other specialty newsgroups (e.g., sci.math.numerics),
>which have sharply deliminted subject areas. Perhaps I'm wrong...
You are.
> So let's see the data.
Well, for "data," check out the several followups to this thread from
people saying "I/my collaborators don't read sci.physics, but I/we would
read sci.physics.research."
>As usual when social engineering is proposed, the proponents include
>those who will enjoy higher status under the new regime. It is
>remarkable that the above objections, which are only common sense,
>have not been addressed by any of the presumptive moderators, other
>than by hand-waving reassurances.
I'm doing it now. BTW, lest there be any misunderstanding, this particular
prospective co-moderator definitely does not aspire to net-guruhood; I have
been in that role before, and I don't like it. "Higher status" should not
be confused with a willingness to put one's money (more accurately, time)
where one's mouth is ...
>In summary, there is a substantial down-side to forming a new group.
>Why meddle with the current system, which works OK?
Look. The point is that the current system **doesn't** work OK. The
abominable signal/noise ratio chases off precisely the people who could
contribute to improving that ratio, not merely by exchanging arcana
among themselves but by being available as resources for the whole
readership. (Nor is sci.physics unique in this regard; I can think of
at least four other newsgroups where real, certified experts have given
up in disgust because the place is such a waste of time, and all four of
those groups are the worse for the experts' departure.) It's more to the
point to think of sci.physics.research as a relatively minor repair that
those who perceive the system as broken agree should be made.
As for the down side, remember that good old unmoderated sci.physics
will still exist! It's not like a conspiracy of pseudo-intellectuals
is out to dominate the net by destroying existing fora for open discussion.
If that was in danger of happening, I wouldn't support sci.physics.research
either; but it's not, and I do.
--
Bill Johnson | My suggestion for an Official
Los Alamos National Laboratory | Usenet Motto: "If you have nothing
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA | to say, then come on in, this is the
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (m...@lanl.gov) | place for you, tell us all about it!"
William Johnson
>I haven't seen mechanics described. Do the co-mods just vote on each
>submission, or can they edit? (Or should we just try it and see what
>happens? I think this is one group that is going to undergo a lot of
>evolution, so maybe too much decision-making now is unneeded, or even
>bad.)
As Matt has indicated, the current intention is to distribute submissions
randomly to the co-moderators, each one of whom will have yea/nay power
over things he gets. I think it's plausible that eventually the message
traffic will reach some intermediate level (after gyrating between
frustratingly high and boringly low levels) that will allow exchanges
among the moderators to occur; as you say, evolution is likely to happen,
and we can cross that bridge when we get to it.
As for editing, my own guidelines will be: When I get something that IMO
needs editing, I will return it for the *submitter* to edit. Exceptions
will occur under the following few circumstances:
1) I will include lines like
[moderator's note: followups via e-mail rather than posting,
please]
if it appears to me that followups in the newsgroup are not
appropriate. This will happen fairly often, and submitters are free
to ignore the request if they think their followups *are* good stuff
for the readership, albeit at some risk of getting rejected.
2) I may editorialize to the effect that "This subject is marginal
for sci.physics.research, please consider *carefully* whether you
want to follow up to it or follow up in a different newsgroup."
3) If it's a request for info on a subject that I know -- and I mean
*know* -- I may answer the request in a moderator's note to the
posting. Don't count on it, though; that isn't going to happen very
often.
I believe that the co-moderators have all agreed (by endorsing Matt's
proposed charter) that we won't edit *anything* for content or grammar. Not
only would it be inappropriate, I for one just don't have the time.
William Johnson
>No, they are not all Scientologists. I have reason to believe that none
>of them is a Scientologist.
Hmmm. You have access to my FBI files or something? :-)
>The new group is being set up to provide a forum with a good S/N
>ratio, so that those who want a newsgroup to discuss real physics
>can have one. I expect there will be lots of crossposting between
>sci.physics and sci.physics.research, so you needn't worry about
>sci.physics dying as a result.
I agree with most of what you've said, but it would be interesting to
find out whether people agree with the crossposting part. I, for one,
would worry somewhat about too much crossposting; rather, it is likely
that followups for some marginal subjects might be redirected to
sci.physics. We'll have to see how that one works out.
Mark Corscadden
>... We will be excluding such things as: *bian's
>endless thread, discussions of religion and politics (which threads on
>sci.physics often turn into), endless repeats of questions that are in
>the FAQ, re-re-rehashes of discussions ofthe interpretations of quantum
>mechanics, etc..
How did re-re-rehashes of the interpretations of quantum mechanics make
it's way onto the scrap heap? How does eliminating such discussions fit
in with the goal of making sci.physics.research "lightly" moderated?
(No, I did not miss the "re-re-re" in "re-re-rehashes".)
I'm looking at the original proposal from Matt Austern, and the goal
seems to be to eliminate clearly inappropriate articles, that is, noise
having nothing to do with legitimate physics. Do discussions of the
interpretations of quantum mechanics really fit that category, in all
fairness? Things covered in the FAQ, yes; but a comprehensive FAQ on
QM interpretations doesn't exist. Maybe that's because there isn't
enough consensus to allow a comprehensive FAQ entry to be written.
I'll grant that such discussions may be of no interest to professionals
since they've "heard it all before", but then what is the real agenda for
sci.physics.research, to eliminate clearly inappropriate articles or to
do something else?
I've found the discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics
to be very valuable and educational, and other discussions which would
be of little interest to professionals. Are people who are intensely
interested in physics but committed to some other career path (like
software engineering) going to find sci.physics.research to be a
more-or-less hostile environment where their curiosity is not welcome?
There are always going to be new readers as well; will they find that
they are not very welcome too since their topics of interest were already
discussed last year and the year before (no re-re-rehashes)?
Maybe, and that would not necessarily be bad. Sci.math.research has no
elementary discussion in it and its a good enough group, if somewhat dry
and low volume. Is that really what is wanted for sci.physics.research,
though? So far it doesn't seem that way. So far it seems like most
people envision sci.physics.research being a lot more open and lively
than sci.math.research.
What about a compromise? For certain topics like the interpretations
of quantum mechanics the moderators could mandate a standard subject
line, requiring that it start with "QMI" for example, to allow a simple
killfile entry to be used by the non-interested. Would that be enough?
Mark Corscadden
ma...@smsc.sony.com
work: (408)944-4086
William Johnson
>John Sidles raises a number of questions, some of which have been dealt
>with by other people already, but I will hack away at them anyway ...
>>which have sharply deliminted subject areas. Perhaps I'm wrong...
>
>You are.
Oops. That should have read
>You are. :-)
It was not my intention to insult Mr. Sidles or to rub his nose in anything. I
*do* think he's wrong, but his points are cogently made. My line was supposed
to be jocular but didn't come out that way owing to typing too fast and
omitting the smiley. I've offered Mr. Sidles my apology via e-mail.
Stephen F. Schaffner
|> I've found the discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics
|> to be very valuable and educational, and other discussions which would
|> be of little interest to professionals. Are people who are intensely
|> interested in physics but committed to some other career path (like
|> software engineering) going to find sci.physics.research to be a
|> more-or-less hostile environment where their curiosity is not welcome?
|> There are always going to be new readers as well; will they find that
|> they are not very welcome too since their topics of interest were already
|> discussed last year and the year before (no re-re-rehashes)?
A practice I've seen on other moderated news groups is to close down
controversial/high volume topics when they've been beaten to death, and only
allow them to be reopened when some time has gone by (say, six months or a
year).
--
Steve Schaffner ssc...@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC,
Stanford University, or the DOE.
John C. Baez
In article <1993Jan8.1...@galois.mit.edu> jb...@riesz.mit.edu
(John C. Baez) writes:
>... We will be excluding such things as: *bian's
>endless thread, discussions of religion and politics (which threads on
>sci.physics often turn into), endless repeats of questions that are in
>the FAQ, re-re-rehashes of discussions ofthe interpretations of quantum
>mechanics, etc..
How did re-re-rehashes of the interpretations of quantum mechanics make
it's way onto the scrap heap? How does eliminating such discussions fit
in with the goal of making sci.physics.research "lightly" moderated?
(No, I did not miss the "re-re-re" in "re-re-rehashes".)
-------
If folks - and especially the other moderators!! - think I've gone
overboard here, I would gladly recant, especially if we follow Corscadden's
suggestion and label quantum mechanics interpretation posts in such a
way as to make them easily kill-filed. The general issue of threads
that endlessly chase their own tail is perhaps inadequately addressed in
Austern's proposal; I had the sense from discussions with moderators
that such threads would be discouraged... but maybe I was mistaken.
Bob Cadman
>If there hasn't been much discussion, what does that say about the need
>for sci.physics.research?
Maybe it says that everyone agrees it's a good idea and we should have
the vote as soon as possible.
>Except for the prospective moderators
>themselves, who else is calling for new group?
All right, then, despite the fact that it is costing hundreds if not
thousands of dollars to send this message everywhere, I'll say that I'd
like to see s.p.r. created, if the details can be ironed out, and I will
add that I don't read s.p. because the signal to noise ratio is too low.
(If another post in this thread is any indication of what has been going
on there, I haven't been missing much.)
>I hope these guys are not all scientologists! There would be no
>way to replace them. Sounds like a prescription for a self-perpetuating
>aristocracy to me. Good thing the Constitution isn't set up this way.
It seems to me that in its own special way, Usenet is a
self-perpetuating aristocracy. Deal with it.
--
Bob Cadman (cad...@uiuc.edu)
A word is worth a thousand pictures.
Cameron Randale Bass
>In article <1993Jan8.1...@galois.mit.edu> jb...@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>>... We will be excluding such things as: *bian's
>>endless thread, discussions of religion and politics (which threads on
>>sci.physics often turn into), endless repeats of questions that are in
>>the FAQ, re-re-rehashes of discussions ofthe interpretations of quantum
>>mechanics, etc..
>
>How did re-re-rehashes of the interpretations of quantum mechanics make
>it's way onto the scrap heap? How does eliminating such discussions fit
>in with the goal of making sci.physics.research "lightly" moderated?
>(No, I did not miss the "re-re-re" in "re-re-rehashes".)
>
>I'm looking at the original proposal from Matt Austern, and the goal
>seems to be to eliminate clearly inappropriate articles, that is, noise
>having nothing to do with legitimate physics. Do discussions of the
>interpretations of quantum mechanics really fit that category, in all
>fairness? Things covered in the FAQ, yes; but a comprehensive FAQ on
>QM interpretations doesn't exist. Maybe that's because there isn't
>enough consensus to allow a comprehensive FAQ entry to be written.
No, and this is an extremely poor instructional medium in some
respects (maybe in most respects). The FAQ can never be a textbook,
nor can the group. I think once no substantial new information is being
exchanged it should should be cut off. As far as the time-delay
before such a subject with exactly the same information as before
can come up again, I suppose that should be when whoever receives
it has forgotten the last time he posted on the same subject.
I'm hoping that this will not happen often, and that we can
discuss new information with each iteration of a subject (though
maybe with some old thrown in).
>I've found the discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics
>to be very valuable and educational, and other discussions which would
>be of little interest to professionals. Are people who are intensely
>interested in physics but committed to some other career path (like
>software engineering) going to find sci.physics.research to be a
>more-or-less hostile environment where their curiosity is not welcome?
I hope not. I was hoping that the presence of someone outside
physics proper might indicate that all are welcome.
>There are always going to be new readers as well; will they find that
>they are not very welcome too since their topics of interest were already
>discussed last year and the year before (no re-re-rehashes)?
New readers are a problem. I know that I read Usenet for over
a year and a half before posting anything. That would be an
extreme suggestion, but one should probably sit around for a while
listening to the hubbub. If one does this, such rererehashes are
bound to come up a couple of times in sci.physics. Even if
one doesn't wait, if the poster is redirected to sci.physics,
the necessary rerererehash can occur.
But we have exactly the same problems with connectivity. I know
that my reception is different from UNC's which is different
from Brett McInnes's out there across the ocean. Things will
be missed.
>What about a compromise? For certain topics like the interpretations
>of quantum mechanics the moderators could mandate a standard subject
>line, requiring that it start with "QMI" for example, to allow a simple
>killfile entry to be used by the non-interested. Would that be enough?
I hope that this is not necessary. It seems to somewhat mitigate
the purpose of the new group.
dale bass
--
C. R. Bass cr...@virginia.edu
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal (804) 924-7926
Srihari Keshavamurthy
q-state potts model's partition function is a knot invariant. My
question is that given a say 2d lattice model, is it possible that
the corresponding partition function can always be identified with
some knot invariant? Another question is that if you are describing
a knotted system like say DNA or some such physical system then does the
indep. variable in the knot polynomial correspond to some physical
parameter? While I am at it, what is the best reference to learn
about quantum groups without a heavy emphasis on the mathematical
aspects, apart from the "Baez articles" of course :). Thanks.
srihari
Jim Mccoy
>
>> I don't see anyone here representing the Condensed Matter Physics community,
>> either theoretical or experimental. Is this by design, or did no Solid
>> State people volunteer?
>
>list with the proposed panel of moderators. My feeling is that at
>this point things are far enough along that it's probably better to
>stick with the panel we have, instead of expanding it.
This may be a good idea for the immediate future (at least as far as
creating the group), but is probably something that should be addressed as
soon as possible if the group passes. It might make some sense to deal
with any substantive problems with the composition of the "review board" in
a timely manner...
jim
--
Jim McCoy | PGP 2.0 Key md5 hash:
j-m...@nwu.edu | 61323c49024cb089337c78a05aafe8c6
mc...@ils.nwu.edu | finger mc...@ils.nwu.edu for public key
Allen Knutson
>Sci.math.research has no
>elementary discussion in it and it's a good enough group, if somewhat dry
>and low volume. Is that really what is wanted for sci.physics.research,
>though? So far it doesn't seem that way. So far it seems like most
>people envision sci.physics.research being a lot more open and lively
>than sci.math.research.
I suspect that if sci.physics.research isn't the waste of quite so much
time that sci.physics is, it will be higher-volume than sci.math.research.
I think this because hep-th, the high-energy physics (theoretical)
mailing list has vastly more entries and subscribers than the algebraic
geometry or category theory mailing lists. So apparently there are more
physicists hip to Internet things. Allen K.
Matt Austern
> In article <1993Jan8.1...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> an...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Andre Roberge) writes:
> >Presuming that people criticising the proposed panel of moderators are
> >in favour of creating sci.physics.research, why not try to proceed as
> >fast as possible to create such a group, give a chance to the proposed
> >moderators to prove their worth as such and see what happen?...
>
> I think we are proceeding as fast as possible. Presumably Austern will
> call for a vote any minute now.
Within the week, probably, but most likely not "any minute."
The guidelines for creating a newsgroup specify a minimum length of
time for a discussion period before a vote on newsgroup creation is
taken; however, they don't specify a maximum. The clear intent is
that all important issues should be discussed and, to the extent
possible, resolved, before the vote.
The discussion was quiet for a while, but it has become much more
animated in the last couple of days. In my opinion, it would be
premature to take a vote quite yet: there are still some questions
that haven't been fully threshed out yet. I hope that we can achieve
something close enough to a consensus so that I can send out an
official call for votes some time next week.
[Oh, and for people who are getting frustrated with how long this
whole process is taking, all I can do is apologize. The newsgroup
creation process was deliberately made slow and cumbersome.]
John Snyder
>
>Just a thought, quite a few agree that there is too few research level
>postings, but how many researchers are aware of usenet news ?
[...rest of the stuff deleted...]
Being of the Condensed Matter Experimentalist bent, I also read
sci.materials. I think that is a good example of how a research-
oriented newsgroup can work. It has fewer articles, but I find
most of them interesting and informative. It also seems to lack
crackpots, big egos, personal insults, long-running arguments,
and other such clutter. [And please, spare me any snide remarks
about materials scientists being dull, uninspired engineers; while
physicists are philosopher intellectuals.]
I am in favor of the moderated newsgroup, whether it is called
sci.physics.research, sci.physics.mainstream, or whatever.
There will still be sci.physics and alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
for those who feel that the moderated group is too confining.
And for those who worry about "censorship", I would point out
that all ideas in physics are NOT equally valid. They are
"censored" by having to agree with existing experimental data,
and to reduce to existing physical laws in the regimes where they
are known to work.
Paul Budnik
> [...]
> overboard here, I would gladly recant, especially if we follow Corscadden's
> suggestion and label quantum mechanics interpretation posts in such a
> way as to make them easily kill-filed. The general issue of threads
> that endlessly chase their own tail is perhaps inadequately addressed in
> Austern's proposal; I had the sense from discussions with moderators
> that such threads would be discouraged... but maybe I was mistaken.
There seems to be a large disconnect between the formal charter
for this group and what John Baez wants it to be. Either of these
two might be good groups, but it is important to be clear about what the
charter is and to recognize that the group's charter and not the desires
of the moderators must dictate what gets accepted.
Here are some specific issues that I think need to be more clearly addressed.
1. It is a bad idea to have the word crackpot in the charter. You need to
be able to reference the charter when you give the reason for rejecting
an article and calling someone a crackpot is not good form especially for
someone in a position of authority (even the limited authority of
a newsgroup moderator). Miss Manners would not approve. It is also too
ambiguous. If you want to reject articles that are `not even wrong' then
reject articles that are primarily philosophical in nature or that make
claims that cannot even in principle be decided by experiment.
This criteria would probably rule out most discussions of interpretations
of QM since they generally cannot be verified experimentally. You need
to decide whether the philosophy of quantum mechanics is an acceptable topic
in this group.
2. If you want to put limits on the quantity of articles and have this
influence the decision about what articles get accepted this must be
in the charter.
3. The charter as I read it implys that little of what gets posted
that has real physics content and is not addressed by the FAQ or repetitive
would be rejected even if it is almost certainly erroneous. For example
I think much of what Jack Sarfatti posts would probably be accepted.
It at least reaches the level of being wrong rather than `not even
wrong'. I do not think that is what you want the group to be, but it
is not clear from the charter how you could exclude postings that
contradict well understood principles. Perhaps you need a line
about this in the charter.
4. If you want a group that only addresses research issues as John Baez
apparently does, then you need a different charter. This requires
`heavy' not `light' moderation. It also requires that the moderators
be well informed about what constitutes current research as opposed to
well established results or pure speculation over a broad class of topics.
That is a heavy burden to impose.
Paul Budnik
Cameron Randale Bass
>In article <1993Jan9.0...@galois.mit.edu>, jb...@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>> [...]
>> If folks - and especially the other moderators!! - think I've gone
>> overboard here, I would gladly recant, especially if we follow Corscadden's
>> suggestion and label quantum mechanics interpretation posts in such a
>> way as to make them easily kill-filed. The general issue of threads
>> that endlessly chase their own tail is perhaps inadequately addressed in
>> Austern's proposal; I had the sense from discussions with moderators
>> that such threads would be discouraged... but maybe I was mistaken.
>
>There seems to be a large disconnect between the formal charter
>for this group and what John Baez wants it to be. Either of these
>two might be good groups, but it is important to be clear about what the
>charter is and to recognize that the group's charter and not the desires
>of the moderators must dictate what gets accepted.
I think the difference here is between discussions that have
new information and discussions that have no substantial new
information. Quantum mechanics interpretations should certainly
not be a proscribed subject. On the other hand, if no one
is saying anything new, perhaps we should move on.
And I hope to a great extent the group's charter reflects
the feelings of the prospective moderators, since we did discuss it.
However, to a certain extent a charter is not and cannot be
a manual to allow bureaucratic precision in selection of
which articles to post. First, the variety of posts is unpredictable,
and it is difficult to handle all of the cases a priori. Second,
there will be an adjustment process if the group passes, I'm sure
we'll all look at the articles that are and are not accepted by
the other moderators and adjust accordingly. Finally, we're all
human and there will be differences, no matter how hard we try.
That said, it might be good to address rehashing in some general
way in the charter.
>Here are some specific issues that I think need to be more clearly addressed.
>
>1. It is a bad idea to have the word crackpot in the charter. You need to
>be able to reference the charter when you give the reason for rejecting
>an article and calling someone a crackpot is not good form especially for
>someone in a position of authority (even the limited authority of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a newsgroup moderator). Miss Manners would not approve. It is also too
I'll say. However, I think all of us have enough politesse
to prevent open rudeness in such a situation. The phrase has
the advantage of giving a vivid picture of what is being precluded.
>ambiguous. If you want to reject articles that are `not even wrong' then
>reject articles that are primarily philosophical in nature or that make
>claims that cannot even in principle be decided by experiment.
>This criteria would probably rule out most discussions of interpretations
>of QM since they generally cannot be verified experimentally. You need
>to decide whether the philosophy of quantum mechanics is an acceptable topic
>in this group.
'Not even wrong' is a succinct way of saying that the phrase
'muons decay because of their innate desire to be free' would
be unacceptable. In my view, this would not necessarily apply
to postings about philosophy of QM.
>2. If you want to put limits on the quantity of articles and have this
>influence the decision about what articles get accepted this must be
>in the charter.
This might be a good idea, as long as the 'limits' are flexible
and only targets.
>3. The charter as I read it implys that little of what gets posted
>that has real physics content and is not addressed by the FAQ or repetitive
>would be rejected even if it is almost certainly erroneous. For example
>I think much of what Jack Sarfatti posts would probably be accepted.
>It at least reaches the level of being wrong rather than `not even
>wrong'. I do not think that is what you want the group to be, but it
>is not clear from the charter how you could exclude postings that
>contradict well understood principles. Perhaps you need a line
>about this in the charter.
It is inappropriate to consider the name of the poster when
making moderation decisions, but if a posting reaches
the level of being clearly wrong, it should not be acceptable.
>4. If you want a group that only addresses research issues as John Baez
>apparently does, then you need a different charter. This requires
>`heavy' not `light' moderation. It also requires that the moderators
>be well informed about what constitutes current research as opposed to
>well established results or pure speculation over a broad class of topics.
>That is a heavy burden to impose.
I'm not going to speak for John, but it seems to be the re-hashing
process that is the sticking point. It should not be all that
difficult to determine when a thread is only plowing up a field
previously tilled with the same plow and to coax the participants
onto new ground.
Maybe we should be more positive in what we are talking about.
In my view, we should encourage vigourous and substantial discussion
in all areas of physics.
Blair P. Houghton
>It seems to me that I can remember a rather large group of
>threads in which Dale has been a voice of reason, if not
>the only voice of reason.
One must make the observation that it's eminently difficult
to lose the pig in the wallow, one must.
>The problem seems to be that at least a few people think that Dale has
>contributed to the noise which has forced us to create the moderated
>group in the first place, and that this disqualifies him from acting
>as moderator. Personally, I do not see it this way.
A moderated group is an incompressible rod in free space.
The many suspensions of disbelief that produce this fiction
result in eventual contradictions once the objects are
transported to other paradigms. We become familiar with
the concept and expect because familiar objects behave in
familiar ways we can apply them similarly in new contexts.
Newsgroup is one; moderation is another; moderated newsgroup
is a fallacy.
Just remember the fate of rec.arts.cinema.
--Blair
"Anyone seen any good Michelle
Pfeiffer flicks lately?"
Blair P. Houghton
>No, they are not all Scientologists. I have reason to believe that none
>some particular sort of ideology to which you object, it would be interesting
>to know what common ideology you have in mind...
I'd say they were all Gay Nazi Bikers for Christ,
but that's been taken already.
--Blair
"Something about that
Newsgroups: line that
minds one of da Silvas..."
Blair P. Houghton
>In short, the reason for sci.physics.research is similar
>to why physics conferences are not usually held in bus
>stations.
I'm sorry, I've been in the S.F. Marriott, and I'd have
to disagree with you.
>(I am not saying that
>sci.physics.research will be equivalent to a physics conference, nor
>that sci.physics is a bus station. Just that a certain amount of
>filtering can make for discussions that are more interesting to to
>experts in a subject.)
Have you ever noticed that "experts in a subject" don't
even read the net because no matter how good it gets (and
it gets pretty good in places) it's not worth their time?
>As for your proposed trial test of sci.physics.research moderators, I
>will leave it to Matt Austern, who is leading this effort, to decide
>what he thinks. It'd be fine by me. I expect that there'll be a
>certain amount of conferring among moderators at first to work out
>sensible standards, by the way.
Just as long as you're included...
--Blair
"Where's your hagiography? Hmm?"
Blair P. Houghton
>Just a thought, quite a few agree that there is too few research level
>postings, but how many researchers are aware of usenet news ?
>I assume it is successful) try to get some of the researchers at my
>institute to subscribe to the group...
>(Of course I'm somewhat naive since I hope these people would have time
>to answer, but one can always hope)
>As to why I haven't tried this with sci.physcis, I guess the answer gives
>itself : Too much noise, too much to catch up with if you've been away
>for a while.
You mean these people you wish to cooperate are constitutionally
opposed to making an effort.
This is consistent with the facts, since if more competent
and reasonable individuals were to contribute to sci.physics,
the noise level would not be as large as the signal level,
and we would not perceive a problem (this is an editorial
"we;" I never perceive a problem when free speech is the
issue) to be solved by limiting their potential access.
I expect that merely clearing the dance floor will not
result in the jitterbugging of wallflowers.
--Blair
"The President's Dilemma."
Blair P. Houghton
>(510) 644-2618 crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
>aus...@lbl.bitnet faction, an army! If you don't have any
>ma...@physics.berkeley.edu solutions, become a part of the problem!
I'd just like to say that anyone who uses that signature in
postings designed to foster a moderated newsgroup is a
hypocrite of the first net.water.
--Blair
"All wet."
Blair P. Houghton
>In article <1993Jan8.1...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> an...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Andre Roberge) writes:
>>Presuming that people criticising the proposed panel of moderators are
>>in favour of creating sci.physics.research, why not try to proceed as
>>fast as possible to create such a group, give a chance to the proposed
>>moderators to prove their worth as such and see what happen?...
>I think we are proceeding as fast as possible. Presumably Austern will
>call for a vote any minute now.
Oh by all means as long as there's a conflict let's please
ram the problem through the congress before somone actually
catches on...
--Blair
"Don't you just love
a good anarchy?"
Blair P. Houghton
>sid...@stein.u.washington.edu (John Sidles) writes:
>>Sounds like a prescription for a self-perpetuating
>>aristocracy to me. Good thing the Constitution isn't set up this way.
>
>It seems to me that in its own special way, Usenet is a
>self-perpetuating aristocracy. Deal with it.
He is, Wilde, he is.
--Blair
"Oh, great; the net.cops have
given way to the net.snobs..."
Blair P. Houghton
>In article <1993Jan8.2...@galois.mit.edu> jb...@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>>sci.physics.research -- if and only if it is created.
Oh, goody.
Intellectual extortion.
John, you're above this.
>>Hopefully this
>>will help jumpstart it. Complex structures is one nice topic. I also
>>want to talk about Crane and Yetter's amazing new paper on 4-dimensional
>>topological quantum field theories.
>
>The best argument for the creation of s.p.r yet!
Oh, goody.
Sycophantic hysteria.
I try never to make direct allusions to the life and times
of Adolf Hitler unless Ted Kaldis or Jack Schmidling are
listening, no matter the provocation, and I won't break
that rule here, but I'm sorely tempted (and they just
might be...).
Let's just say that this is the sort of intellectual
dishonesty that results in pronouncements that certain
regions of philosophy are off-limits to exploration of
a certain kind.
--Blair
"If you really loved me
you'd crush Europe for me..."
Blair P. Houghton
>In article <4...@mtnmath.UUCP> pa...@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan9.0...@galois.mit.edu>, jb...@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
> 'Not even wrong' is a succinct way of saying that the phrase
> 'muons decay because of their innate desire to be free' would
> be unacceptable. In my view, this would not necessarily apply
> to postings about philosophy of QM.
Lovely. Metaphor is rejected out of hand. Schrodinger's cat
will be very disappointed to know that he's dead.
> It is inappropriate to consider the name of the poster when
> making moderation decisions, but if a posting reaches
> the level of being clearly wrong, it should not be acceptable.
Lovely. Refutable argumentation is rejected out of hand.
Sort of like we don't even need to discuss it if it's
going to be discussed... this sort of infringes on
Joseph Heller's copyright, wot?
> I'm not going to speak for John, but it seems to be the re-hashing
> process that is the sticking point. It should not be all that
> difficult to determine when a thread is only plowing up a field
> previously tilled with the same plow and to coax the participants
> onto new ground.
Lovely. Reasoning by group induction is rejected out of
hand. Heaven help us if we need to make a refutable
assumption about a metaphorical situation in a
gedankenexperiment involving the contradiction of a
self-supporting conjecture.
> Maybe we should be more positive in what we are talking about.
> In my view, we should encourage vigourous and substantial discussion
> in all areas of physics.
Viva Caloric!
--Blair
"Methinks the candidates
doth protest too little."
Paul Budnik
> [...]
> I think the difference here is between discussions that have
> new information and discussions that have no substantial new
> information. Quantum mechanics interpretations should certainly
> not be a proscribed subject. On the other hand, if no one
> is saying anything new, perhaps we should move on.
New in what context? New relative to what has been published or
new relative to what has been posted in the last two months.
My suggestion would be to eliminate discussions that are answered in
a standard ungraduate physics curriculum or that have become repetitive
in the last few months. I would not object to repetition over longer
time periods.
>[...]
> And I hope to a great extent the group's charter reflects
> the feelings of the prospective moderators, since we did discuss it.
> However, to a certain extent a charter is not and cannot be
> a manual to allow bureaucratic precision in selection of
> which articles to post. First, the variety of posts is unpredictable,
> and it is difficult to handle all of the cases a priori. Second,
> there will be an adjustment process if the group passes, I'm sure
> we'll all look at the articles that are and are not accepted by
> the other moderators and adjust accordingly. Finally, we're all
> human and there will be differences, no matter how hard we try.
Of course that is all true. But I still think it is important to have
a clear charter that allows a reasonably objective selection criteria.
>[...]
> >1. It is a bad idea to have the word crackpot in the charter. You need to
> >be able to reference the charter when you give the reason for rejecting
> >an article and calling someone a crackpot is not good form especially for
> >someone in a position of authority (even the limited authority of
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >a newsgroup moderator). Miss Manners would not approve. It is also too
>
> I'll say. However, I think all of us have enough politesse
> to prevent open rudeness in such a situation. The phrase has
> the advantage of giving a vivid picture of what is being precluded.
If one of the four main criteria for selection is to eliminate crackpot
postings then I do not see how you avoid explicitly referring to it when you
given a reason for rejecting some articles. Certainly this would not always
be necessary but I assume, at the least, you would do it for a first time
poster.
> [...]'Not even wrong' is a succinct way of saying that the phrase
> 'muons decay because of their innate desire to be free' would
> be unacceptable. In my view, this would not necessarily apply
> to postings about philosophy of QM.
I doubt if you will have many posters that submit articles like that.
I am not clear about the criteria for rejecting articles under
the crackpot (not even wrong) item. I think you need to spell it out
more clearly. It should not be a catch all to reject the articles that the
moderators think are inappropriate without explaining the criteria.
> [...] >2. If you want to put limits on the quantity of articles and have this
> >influence the decision about what articles get accepted this must be
> >in the charter.
>
> This might be a good idea, as long as the 'limits' are flexible
> and only targets.
I think you can be as flexible as you want but you need to spell it out
in the charter. You could propose a charter to only allow the articles
the moderators like if you want. You would probably loose the vote but
no one would complain that you were not clear about what you propose.
There is nothing wrong with saying that an attempt will
be made to limit the articles to X per day unless the quality of submissions
suggests that a higher number is more appropriate. My own feeling is that you
should simply define a clear selection criteria and then let the chips
fall where they may. As a result you might want to modify the selection
criteria or split off into more groups or who knows what.
> [...] Maybe we should be more positive in what we are talking about.
> In my view, we should encourage vigourous and substantial discussion
> in all areas of physics.
I agree it would be a good idea to put emphasis on the positive goals
of the group in the charter.
Paul Budnik
Cameron Randale Bass
>> [...]
>> I think the difference here is between discussions that have
>> new information and discussions that have no substantial new
>> information. Quantum mechanics interpretations should certainly
>> not be a proscribed subject. On the other hand, if no one
>> is saying anything new, perhaps we should move on.
>
>New in what context? New relative to what has been published or
>new relative to what has been posted in the last two months.
>My suggestion would be to eliminate discussions that are answered in
>a standard ungraduate physics curriculum or that have become repetitive
>in the last few months. I would not object to repetition over longer
>time periods.
New in the context of the rehashing we were discussing. At the
very least there should be some substantial time lag before
the very same content is posted. My feeling is at least six months,
but I hope that posters will feel it incumbent upon themselves
to provide new stuff in any case.
Besides, how good do you think our collective memory really is?
When we've forgotten the last time one was posted, it's probably
about time. For my memory, that's probably about six months.
>>[...]
>> >1. It is a bad idea to have the word crackpot in the charter. You need to
>> >be able to reference the charter when you give the reason for rejecting
>> >an article and calling someone a crackpot is not good form especially for
>> >someone in a position of authority (even the limited authority of
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >a newsgroup moderator). Miss Manners would not approve. It is also too
>>
>> I'll say. However, I think all of us have enough politesse
>> to prevent open rudeness in such a situation. The phrase has
>> the advantage of giving a vivid picture of what is being precluded.
>
>If one of the four main criteria for selection is to eliminate crackpot
>postings then I do not see how you avoid explicitly referring to it when you
>given a reason for rejecting some articles. Certainly this would not always
>be necessary but I assume, at the least, you would do it for a first time
>poster.
Not necessarily. There are certainly ways to phrase correspondence
that would still be consistent with the charter and yet would
still be polite. The charter seems unambiguous, as it probably should,
but politesse requires a degree of ambiguity.
>> [...]'Not even wrong' is a succinct way of saying that the phrase
>> 'muons decay because of their innate desire to be free' would
>> be unacceptable. In my view, this would not necessarily apply
>> to postings about philosophy of QM.
>
>I doubt if you will have many posters that submit articles like that.
>I am not clear about the criteria for rejecting articles under
>the crackpot (not even wrong) item. I think you need to spell it out
>more clearly. It should not be a catch all to reject the articles that the
>moderators think are inappropriate without explaining the criteria.
I hope you're right and we don't have any postings like that.
In that case, we won't need to use that codicil at all. And
that criterion is not a catch-all. I'm sure we've all seen clearly
crackpot postings in our day, something like '1=1 so the cheese is
purple'. One does usually equal one, and I could forsee the cheese being
purple under some circumstances, so it is not exactly wrong,
but it is not postable.
I don't know how to further explain it except by using examples.
What is it exactly that you are worried about?
dale bass
--
C. R. Bass cr...@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical,
Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia (804) 924-7926
G.J. McCaughan
> >>Hopefully this
> >>will help jumpstart it. Complex structures is one nice topic. I also
> >>want to talk about Crane and Yetter's amazing new paper on 4-dimensional
> >>topological quantum field theories.
> >
> >The best argument for the creation of s.p.r yet!
>
> Oh, goody.
>
> Sycophantic hysteria.
>
> I try never to make direct allusions to the life and times
> of Adolf Hitler unless Ted Kaldis or Jack Schmidling are
> listening, no matter the provocation, and I won't break
> that rule here, but I'm sorely tempted (and they just
> might be...).
>
> Let's just say that this is the sort of intellectual
> dishonesty that results in pronouncements that certain
> regions of philosophy are off-limits to exploration of
> a certain kind.
Pardon me, but what on earth are you on about?
--
Gareth McCaughan Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gj...@cus.cam.ac.uk Cambridge University, England. [Research student]
Marvin Minsky
short, but kills a large fraction of the postings. It wouldn't matter
except that it takes some time to operate. Today, for example, I had
to skip more than a dozen content-free postings by a single person.
I suppose a better solution might be a "heuristic moderator" -- a
message-kill operator that recognizes when a contributor is writing
more papers than is likely to have content. It would conjecture that
the 'offending' contributor has temporarily got into a bad state.
After a couple of days, the filter would display a message of the form
<xxx.. has contributed distinct 20 messages in the past 4 days, for
a total of 80 cross-posted ones. These TEXTS include 40 CAPITALIZED
WORDS. Would you like to read a sample text? (ynq)
Come to think of it, this might solve the present problems with sci.physics.
.
Anthony E. Siegman
familiar seem to have fairly autocratic moderators. Since (at least
as I understand the proposal) sci.physics will continue to exist
unmoderated, I hope the sci.physics.research moderators will be quite
stringent. (I also hope that "What's New" will will appear in
sci.physics.research.)
Anthony E. Siegman
1) Any posting with more than 2 (maybe 3?) entries in the Newsgroups:
line should be automatically dumped.
2) Any posting in which the repetition of previously posted material
(">" lines) runs off the bottom of the first screen should also be
automatically dumped, without even reading subsequent screens.
Actually I don't understand why the first of these isn't Usenet-wide
policy; any way to make a news reader implement the second one (before
the offending article is even opened)?
Blair P. Houghton
> Besides, how good do you think our collective memory really is?
> When we've forgotten the last time one was posted, it's probably
> about time. For my memory, that's probably about six months.
Incredible.
Do you forget the reason FAQs were invented in the first
place (assuming you ever knew it)?
FAQs exist because approximately twice a year a new crop of
newbies gets their trepidatious little fingers on a
networked terminal as the result of the normal educaton
cycle.
The word "periodicity" became a net.joke; one could feel
the surge of cluelessness overtaking the net.beach at
certain seasons; and, basically, it wasn't all that hard to
figure out who was asking all the familiar questions.
> What is it exactly that you are worried about?
If you have to ask, we can't afford it.
--Blair
"Anyone even close to
detecting a thesis, here?"
Blair P. Houghton
>In article <1ingd7...@chnews.intel.com>, bhou...@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>> Let's just say that this is the sort of intellectual
>> dishonesty that results in pronouncements that certain
>> regions of philosophy are off-limits to exploration of
>> a certain kind.
>
>Pardon me, but what on earth are you on about?
"Religion & Physics Don't Mix" ring a bell?
--Blair
"I don't know his name,
but his face..."
Blair P. Houghton
>1) Any posting with more than 2 (maybe 3?) entries in the Newsgroups:
> line should be automatically dumped.
>policy;
It's a feature, not a bug.
Some days you just need to crosspost to six groups
(especially when the interested groups are split eight ways
and you know there are gumbies who read only one of each;
I expect this of sci.physics and sci.physics.research;
everyone wants What's New on both, and Calls for Papers
will be posted to both, as well; but we've already heard
from people who admit they don't even read sci.physics;
presumably they were in sci.misc when they read the message
to which they responded).
>2) Any posting in which the repetition of previously posted material
> (">" lines) runs off the bottom of the first screen should also be
> automatically dumped, without even reading subsequent screens.
>any way to make a news reader implement [this] one (before
>the offending article is even opened)?
Most NNTP servers prohibit any posting which includes more
old text than new text (ignoring the header but not the
attribution). But this is a stylistic problem, on the
order of poor spelling (or spelling-flaming), which I've
learned to ignore.
A good discussion usually means that you can follow up
without attribution or inclusion; some, like this one,
require the inclusions for context, and often a little
editing to improve its organization.
--Blair
"All answers must be in the
form of a full sentence."
Aggelos Keromyths
Aggelos
Ron Williams
> In article <1993Jan8.1...@galois.mit.edu> jb...@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
> >... We will be excluding such things as: *bian's
> >endless thread, discussions of religion and politics (which threads on
> >sci.physics often turn into), endless repeats of questions that are in
> >the FAQ, re-re-rehashes of discussions ofthe interpretations of quantum
> >mechanics, etc..
> How did re-re-rehashes of the interpretations of quantum mechanics make
> it's way onto the scrap heap? How does eliminating such discussions fit
> in with the goal of making sci.physics.research "lightly" moderated?
> (No, I did not miss the "re-re-re" in "re-re-rehashes".)
[ deletes ]
>
> I've found the discussions of the interpretations of quantum mechanics
> to be very valuable and educational, and other discussions which would
> be of little interest to professionals. Are people who are intensely
> interested in physics but committed to some other career path (like
> software engineering) going to find sci.physics.research to be a
> more-or-less hostile environment where their curiosity is not welcome?
Yes. I also fit into the above category. Having trained in physics, and still
having a lively interest in what's new, I am, however working in another field.
I find it annoying to wade through the garbage that makes it into sci.physics,
but really value the discussion that Mr. (Dr.?) Sarfatti provoked.
[deletes]
>
> What about a compromise? For certain topics like the interpretations
> of quantum mechanics the moderators could mandate a standard subject
> line, requiring that it start with "QMI" for example, to allow a simple
> killfile entry to be used by the non-interested. Would that be enough?
>
I second this. I was extremely interested in the QMI articles, it being eight
years since I finished my degree.
regards,
--
Ron Williams ACSnet : r...@syacus.acus.oz
Ph : +61 2 390-1366 Internet : r...@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
Fax: +61 2 390-1391 UUCP : uunet!munnari!syacus.acus.oz.au!ron
Standard Disclaimers Apply
Daryl McCullough
no problem with the proposed panel of moderators. However, in my
opinion, it would be much better if the new group were defined by the
subject matter, rather than the quality, of the articles. If the
criterion for an article being accepted into sci.physics.research is
simply that it be good physics, that would imply that sci.physics is
the newsgroup for bad physics.
I think it is pretty ridiculous for people to say that they don't read
sci.physics because the signal to noise ratio is too low. Most News
reading programs have features that allow you to scan the subject
lines to decide which articles are worth reading. In almost all cases
of articles that are unfit for sci.physics.research, it is possible to
make such a judgement from the subject line alone (in my experience).
Daryl McCullough
(Not a Physicist, but some of my best friends are)
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY
Michael Weiss
In article <1993Jan8.2...@galois.mit.edu> jb...@riesz.mit.edu (John
C. Baez) writes:
Please do ask [about why the Dirac sea is not really needed]! Or maybe
I will simply go ahead and answer. One doesn't really need C*-algebras,
by the way, one just needs a good understanding of the role of complex
structures -- that is, the number i -- in quantum mechanics.
I meant to do a little more background reading, but since others are
asking, let me add my voice to those asking for elaboration.
You've already explained what you mean by "complex structure". Namely, let
H be a Hilbert space over C; the complex structure is the mapping v --> iv,
where v is in H and i=sqrt(-1), as usual.
The next obvious question is what is H for Dirac's electrons? Normally I'd
suppose the answer is 4-spinor fields, or (confusing the representation
with the abstraction) L^2 functions from spacetime to C^4.
However, Dirac comments that he needs four components because of the
negative energy states. Quoting from his "Principles of QM" (4th edition):
We saw in section 37 that the spin of the electron requires the wave
function to have two components. The fact that our present theory
gives four is due to our wave equation (7) having twice as many
solutions as it ought to have, half of them corresponding to states of
negative energy.
So maybe we want 2-spinors, i.e., spin vectors, for SU(2) to act on?
And what IS the correct complex structure? And why, mathematically, do you
get the same results by interchanging annihilation and creation operators?
And how does the correct complex structure predict positrons--- or does it?
Inquiring minds want to know.
DOUGLAS CRAIGEN
>I think it is pretty ridiculous for people to say that they don't read
>sci.physics because the signal to noise ratio is too low. Most News
>reading programs have features that allow you to scan the subject
>lines to decide which articles are worth reading. In almost all cases
>of articles that are unfit for sci.physics.research, it is possible to
>make such a judgement from the subject line alone (in my experience).
>Ithaca, NY
The problem is that it takes some (negative) experience reading any
group (including sci.physics) to be able to make such judgements quickly and
easily. The low signal to noise ratio tends to scare people off before they
have the experience with the group to be able to find the "good stuff" (i.e.
the stuff they would want to read) quickly. Besides, even "good" topics
eventually turn into a flame war. Take Blair's reply to my last posting
under this heading for an example. My words annoyed him, so "RE:
sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators" received its most
colorful language so far as a result. If I was among those inclined to take
up such battles, this heading would become very cluttered very quickly, and
the rest of you would have to start filtering out the stuff that the two of
us submitted.
===================================================================
Doug Craigen, Department of Physics, Acadia University,
Wolfville, N.S., B0P 1X0, (902) 542 - 2201 x150
Da seaweed is always greena
In somebody else's lake
-Sebastian (the crab in "The Little Mermaid")
G.J. McCaughan
>In article <1993Jan10.0...@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gj...@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan) writes:
>>In article <1ingd7...@chnews.intel.com>, bhou...@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>>> Let's just say that this is the sort of intellectual
>>> dishonesty that results in pronouncements that certain
>>> regions of philosophy are off-limits to exploration of
>>> a certain kind.
>>
>>Pardon me, but what on earth are you on about?
>
It was the "intellectual dishonesty", and the way in which it was supposed
to result in such pronouncements, that I didn't follow.
Paul Johnson
>1. It is a bad idea to have the word crackpot in the charter. ...
I gather that journals such as Nature refer to these articles as "too
speculative". If the charter calls for the rejection of "overly
speculative" articles then that would be polite but firm.
Paul.
--
Paul Johnson (p...@gec-mrc.co.uk). | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
Benjamin Weiner
> ... Another question is that if you are describing
>a knotted system like say DNA or some such physical system then does the
>indep. variable in the knot polynomial correspond to some physical
>parameter?
Knot to be obnoxious but I don't think DNA forms knots at all
(other than the trivial not-really-knotted forms). Neither do
proteins, although the study of how proteins fold into their
complicated structures is an official Hot Topic right now, which
incidentally may involve a fair amount of sophisticated
statistical mechanics. Anyone who knows more about protein folding
is invited to shed some light ...
John C. Baez
>I have a question for the experts out there. I understand that the
>q-state potts model's partition function is a knot invariant. My
>question is that given a say 2d lattice model, is it possible that
>the corresponding partition function can always be identified with
>some knot invariant?
I answered this one on sci.physics already - are we suffering from a
time lag? To repeat, the partition function for the q-state Potts model
is NOT a knot invariant; it's related to the 3-variable Kauffman
bracket, but not to the 1-variable specialization of the Kauffman
bracket that is a knot invariant.
>Another question is that if you are describing
>a knotted system like say DNA or some such physical system then does the
>indep. variable in the knot polynomial correspond to some physical
>parameter? While I am at it, what is the best reference to learn
>about quantum groups without a heavy emphasis on the mathematical
>aspects, apart from the "Baez articles" of course :). Thanks.
The "Baez articles" are about the worst way to learn about quantum groups
since I don't think I ever got around to defining quantum groups!!
For quantum groups I would try:
Quantum groups and non-commutative geometry / Yu. I. Manin.
Montreal, QC, Canada : Centre de recherches mathematiques, Universite de
Montreal, [1988?]
Drinfeld, V.: Quantum groups, {\sl Proc.\ Int.\
Cong.\ Math.\ }(1986), 798-820
and for some connections with physics and loads of references,
Majid, S.: Quasitriangular Hopf algebras and Yang-Baxter
equations, {\sl Int.\ Jour.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A} {\bf 5} (1990), 1-91.
Vijanathi Chari and Andrew Pressley are writing a very good book on
quantum groups, but it'll be a while before this gets published.
John C. Baez
>In article <1iksms...@rave.larc.nasa.gov> ma...@uab21.larc.nasa.gov (Mark Flanagan) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan8.2...@galois.mit.edu> jb...@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>>>I'm planning on writing some advanced expository articles on
>>>sci.physics.research -- if and only if it is created.
>
>Oh, goody.
>
>Intellectual extortion.
>
>John, you're above this.
No, I'm not.
Besides, it's not extortion, it's bribery.
John C. Baez
You've already explained what you mean by "complex structure". Namely,
let H be a Hilbert space over C; the complex structure is the mapping v -->
iv, where v is in H and i=sqrt(-1), as usual.
The next obvious question is what is H for Dirac's electrons? Normally
I'd suppose the answer is 4-spinor fields, or (confusing the representation
with the abstraction) L^2 functions from spacetime to C^4.
----
Your description of what a complex structure is makes it a bit unclear
as to what "picking the right one" means. The point is that the
classical phase space is a real vector space V and to make it into a
complex vector space one needs to pick a linear operator J:V -> V with
J^2 = -1; then we can think of V as a complex vector space with iv = Jv.
In the case of bosons, the classical phase space is a symplectic vector
space (i.e., equipped with a nondegenerate antisymmetric bilinear
pairing), while in the case of fermions, it's an orthogonal vector space
(i.e., equipped with a positive definite symmetric bilinear pairing). When
we have picked a complex structure, the antisymmetric (resp. symmetric) pairing
is supposed to become the imaginary (resp. real) part of a (complex) inner
product on V, which then can be completed to obtain a complex Hilbert
space. Note that given the antisymmetric (resp. symmetric) pairing, the
requirement that it be the imaginary (resp. real) part of a complex
inner product places a constraint on any candidate complex structure.
This constraint is far from enough to determine the complex structure,
though; often one can pin down the right one by the constraint that the
Hamiltonian of the theory be nonnegative. There is much more to say
about this (like why one needs a complex structure to define creation
and annihilation operators, and how changing the complex structure can
amount to switching creation and annihilation operators), most of which
is in my book with Segal and Zhou, but I won't go into it now.
Instead, I'll just answer your question! :-) You have almost described the
right "classical phase space" for charged spin-1/2 particles. (The notion of a
"classical phase space" sounds funny in this situation but that's
because we are taught bosonic classical physics, not fermionic!) In
other words, as a vector space OVER THE REALS one uses L^2 functions
from space (R^3 - not spacetime!) to C^4. This is an orthogonal vector
space where one uses the real part of the usual complex inner product as
the positive definite symmetric bilinear pairing. Dirac's error (in
retrospect) was to use ordinary multiplication by i as the complex
structure! One should instead solve the Dirac equation and decompose
the vector space as the direct sum of two parts, the
"positive-frequency" and "negative-frequency" parts, and let the complex
structure J be multiplication by i on the first part but -i on the
second part! (One can do these projections by taking the Fourier
transform of the solution; the positive frequency part is supported on
the forwards mass hyperboloid, while the negative frequency part is
supported on the backwards mass hyperboloid.)
There is, in fact, a unique way to make the solutions of the Dirac
equation into a complex Hilbert space such that 1) the inner product is
invariant under the action of the Poincare group and 2) the self-adjoint
generator of time evolution is nonnegative. I have just described it;
proving it's unique is done in our book. Using the "obvious but wrong"
complex structure (plain old multiplication by i) and the orthogonal
structure described above gives a complex Hilbert space satisfying 1)
but not 2) -- that is, one gets holes!
Daniel E. Platt
|> In article <craigen.57...@ace.acadiau.ca> cra...@ace.acadiau.ca (DOUGLAS CRAIGEN) writes:
|> > Why do you always claim that he is religious?
|>
|> Because he believes God can exist and that's faith in God
|> and that's all it takes.
Most TV evangelists would not accept this as a definition of
faith in God since it is too broad.
Many more liberal theologians would likely profess a faith that
you would not recognize as believing in God, and they would
consider most of this argument to be obtuse and irrelevent.
The level of argument concerning religion here seems to demonstrate
mostly that many people who regularly post here don't know a lot
about human religion.
|> A clue you deserve:
|>
|> 1. Fuck you. This is a fucking conflict and I'll take any
|> fucking ground I want, you fucking moron.
This seems to reflect a lot more anger than the situation
demands. Perhaps a psychological therapist could help sort
out the priorities.
|> --Blair
|> "If you don't understand
|> this, then how did you
|> ever learn to read? and
|> why can't my computer
|> read even that poorly?"
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel E. Platt pl...@watson.ibm.com
The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U16...@uicvm.uic.edu
Baez) says:
>Vijanathi Chari and Andrew Pressley are writing a very good book on
>quantum groups, but it'll be a while before this gets published.
If it is not yet published , how can you (j. Baez) be sure it's a very
good book?
Thaddeus Olczyk
J Lee Jaap
What ?
Aggelos
Perhaps to elaborate: What does this have to do with news.groups?
Please be more careful in your choice of newsgroups.
--
J Lee Jaap <J.L....@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
Steinn Sigurdsson
In article <C0KH6...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rvc4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bob Cadman) writes:
>sid...@stein.u.washington.edu (John Sidles) writes:
>>Sounds like a prescription for a self-perpetuating
>>aristocracy to me. Good thing the Constitution isn't set up this way.
>It seems to me that in its own special way, Usenet is a
>self-perpetuating aristocracy. Deal with it.
He is, Wilde, he is.
Far too ignoble an endeavour.
I believe the word we are looking for is oligarchy...
John C. Baez
I read it.
Blair P. Houghton
>Besides, even "good" topics
>eventually turn into a flame war. Take Blair's reply to my last posting
>under this heading for an example.
An utter non sequitur.
This is not a "good" topic. This is a topic regarding the
creation of a censored region of the Internet gestalt.
Fascism, despite the dogmatic political incorrectness of
it, is a basic human emotion in which a small group desires
control and obtains it by selling to a large group the idea
that the small group's control will be to the benefit of
the large group, especially if the small group is given
special powers to prevent destabilizing influences (and
thereby to prevent threats to its power).
Welcome to the discussion of sci.physics.research.
--Blair
"Double-plus good."
Blair P. Houghton
So far.
--Blair
"Is it 's.p.r' or 's.p.q.r'?"
Blair P. Houghton
>In article <1ingnu...@chnews.intel.com> bhou...@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <C0KH6...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rvc4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bob Cadman) writes:
>>Usenet is a self-perpetuating aristocracy. Deal with it.
>>
>>He is, Wilde, he is.
>
Usenet is an anarchy. Some people have the ability to
perform the acts of technical power, some the acts of
political power, and, rarely, some both (but they even
more rarely do either).
What we are discussing the creation of here, however, is an
oligarchy, but not one of so benign a mein as that word
alone would connote.
I believe "junta" would fit the bill, especially on nodes
in hispanic nations. (Anyone know of a node in a hispanic
nation? I can't think of a single one. Brazil is Portuguese.)
--Blair
"The Cosmopolitan Elvis!"
Vaughan R. Pratt
>
>What we are discussing the creation of here, however, is an
>oligarchy
...a new architecture with a dark puddle forming under it..
--
Vaughan Pratt Another kettle of fish, please.
Steve Leffler
>In article <STEINLY.93...@topaz.ucsc.edu> ste...@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>>In article <1ingnu...@chnews.intel.com> bhou...@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>>In article <C0KH6...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> rvc4...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Bob Cadman) writes:
>>>Usenet is a self-perpetuating aristocracy. Deal with it.
>>>
>>>He is, Wilde, he is.
>>
>>I believe the word we are looking for is oligarchy...
>Usenet is an anarchy. Some people have the ability to
>perform the acts of technical power, some the acts of
>political power, and, rarely, some both (but they even
>more rarely do either).
My Usenet includes moderated newsgroups. ( :-) for other Canadians
out there.)
---Steven Leffler
lef...@physics.ubc.ca