tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (A Q&A site for research-level theoretical physics)

Joe Fitzsimons comments on "A Q&A site for research-level theoretical physics" (16124)

2011-09-16T00:46:05-07:00

I just wanted to add a note to thank you all for your support. It is really great to see so many people from MO contributing, but I also want to stress that it is not my intention to draw away users from this site.

José Figueroa comments on "A Q&A site for research-level theoretical physics" (16094)

2011-09-15T11:30:00-07:00

I too support the banner.

Noah Snyder comments on "A Q&A site for research-level theoretical physics" (16093)

2011-09-15T08:25:19-07:00

I support such a banner.

Michael Kissner comments on "A Q&A site for research-level theoretical physics" (16092)

2011-09-15T02:57:29-07:00

I think that's a great Idea!

Anton Geraschenko comments on "A Q&A site for research-level theoretical physics" (16091)

2011-09-15T00:30:07-07:00

Once the public beta starts, I propose a short term banner on MO plugging the site (like we did for math.SE and tex.SE). If you have an opinion--particularly if you're opposed to such a plug--please speak up.

Qiaochu Yuan comments on "A Q&A site for research-level theoretical physics" (16090)

2011-09-14T14:40:52-07:00

The private beta has just started.

Kaveh comments on "A Q&A site for research-level theoretical physics" (16017)

2011-09-07T19:20:03-07:00

The proposal is now at 99% (up from 76% last week) and will probably reach 100% in a few hours. Thanks for the support.

Scott Carnahan comments on "A Q&A site for research-level theoretical physics" (15982)

2011-09-06T02:40:47-07:00

At this point the site only needs commits from about 18 users who are new, or even fewer users who have accumulated points on StackExchange sites. It would also help if those of you who committed a while ago did a cycle of uncommit-and-recommit, because StackExchange does some kind of time-dependent weighting.

Michael Kissner comments on "A Q&A site for research-level theoretical physics" (15958)

2011-09-04T01:12:11-07:00

I was thinking of posting this myself. I really hope this new site gets to go into Beta

Edit: I believe this topic gave the project quite a bump (According to the Committers graph on the right)

Steve Huntsman comments on "A Q&A site for research-level theoretical physics" (15957)

2011-09-03T19:17:17-07:00

I would be very happy to see theoretical physics questions here, as long as they have a mathematical focus and give some background. A while back someone asked why it's so hard to quantize gravity, and this is a good instance of such a question.

José Figueroa comments on "A Q&A site for research-level theoretical physics" (15952)

2011-09-02T15:36:20-07:00

I think it's certainly OK to post here and I wish I had thought about it myself. I committed to it back in December, but it seemed to be going very slowly. Hopefully this will make it more visible. I have serious doubts about the willingness of the theoretical physics community (or, let me be more precise, the hep-th community to which I belong) to be as generous with their time and their knowledge as the MO community has proved to be, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.

Kaveh comments on "A Q&A site for research-level theoretical physics" (15950)

2011-09-02T10:25:26-07:00

I hope that it is OK to post this here.

There is a proposal for a research-level Q&A site for theoretical physics (MO style). One of the requirements for getting the proposal into beta is that it should have enough commitments from people who use SE sites (TeX.SE, MSE.SE, ...) which is not satisfied at the moment (the idea was to get a large percentage of initial users from researchers in theoretical physics and most of them haven't used the SE network). Theoretical physics is quite close to mathematics so we thought that people on MO might be interested in the proposal. Please check the proposal if you are interested in theoretical physics and commit to it if you find it interesting.

Thanks.