rokhsar@lasspvax.UUCP (Dan Rokhsar) (07/22/85)
When I subscribed to net.physics, I had hoped for interesting discussions by people active in physics (like net.math, which is almost always interesting).Instead of physically literate net users, the contributors to net.physics seem to be (for the most part) confused pseudo-scientists whose knowledge of the subject appears to be derived from the back of cereal boxes and who are compelled to post their latest fantasies concerning the physical world. By now I'm afraid that most serious users have written off net.physics as a total loss, but occasionally there are interesting articles about more mundane topics, like the melting of ice and the origin of lightning; these are swamped by the latest ravings of lunatics on hidden variables and quantum reality, or some such nonsense. This is not to say that these are not important questions, but the articles all come from people who have obviously not derived Bell's theorem or even looked at the original papers; they are mouthing off about their own misinterpretations of articles written for nonscientists that are often inaccurate or confusing in their own right. How about a net.REAL.physics for people who are not interested in unintelligible (or worse, intelligible and stupid) ramblings concerning esoteric pseudo subjects like the latest series on the ether. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending on your point of view!), relativity and quantum mechanics are topics of great importance and should not be banned from the proposed "net.real.physics", but as it stands it is almost never worth reading any entry with these words in the title. When I came back to the net after this weekend, there were nearly 50 pieces of junk, and I had to skip the whole bunch, which makes me wonder whether or not I was missing anything actually interesting concerning "boring" subjects like solid state physics. Net.music was able to purge the grateful dead groupies by exiling them to their own newsgroup, and they seem perfectly happy to exchange with themselves; perhaps the few serious physicists could band together and form their own newsgroup with a less inviting title than net.physics, and the nuts can babble among themselves until the universe again collapses into a black hole (but black holes have no hair! Does this mean we can have tachyons after a black hole collapses? Oh, goody, we can exchange faster than light signals to our hearts content, but what ramifications will this have for the ether? And will there be quanta of ether-matter obeying a new quantum general relativity which will be invented by one of our own net users! Tune in next week....) If anyone else feels this way, write to the net or to me: lasspvax!rokhsar Dan Rokhsar
steve@kontron.UUCP (Steve McIntosh) (07/26/85)
> Instead of physically literate net users, the contributors to net.physics > seem to be (for the most part) confused pseudo-scientists whose knowledge of > the subject appears to be derived from the back of cereal boxes and who are > compelled to post their latest fantasies concerning the physical world. > ... > lasspvax!rokhsar Dan Rokhsar Dan - I get the impression that most of the people on the net are COMPUTER PEOPLE (Engineers, Programmers, Managers etc.) and NOT scientists. (Me included.) The number of Physicists on the net is probably very small compared to the number of non-physicists. Those who are involved in REAL physics have their own esoteric channels of communication - journals, conferences and such. That the typical net user doesnt have the time or ability to access. Many of these users at one time or the other have been interested in physics, and have a craving to understand where physics is going, and are not afraid to speculate about it. I would suggest that net.physics be split into three groups: 1) net.physics would remain for general use. I would suggest that REAL physics people avoid it, unless they are kind enough to participate in speculation or whatever with non-physics people. It would be a real trial for some physics people to be patient and polite to the rest of us. Nobody likes to be insulted. 2) net.physics.expert so that us peons could ask (hopefully) articulate questions of those who may have the answers. And perhaps get replies other than "thats a stupid question". 3) mod.physics for the REAL physics people - complete with referees and all those things that make journals respectible. Here is the place for the discussions that are the meat of REAL physics. Non physics people really do enjoy reading such things. The popularity of net.physics (as based on the amount of net traffic it generates) is, it seems, based on the interest in the subject of those who want to know and learn more. Not because it is an electronic journal. (Afterthought - how about a fourth category - net.physics.news for "hot" news items. After all, most of us don't have a direct line to the field.) - Steve McIntosh, Kontron Electronics, Irvine CA - /Usual disclaimers/