## Wednesday, October 16, 2013 ... /////

### LUX dark matter event: October 30th

The broadcast starts at 4 pm Prague Winter Time. More info about the event. TRF doesn't say whether I endorse Mt Rushmore in SD; see Penn and Teller to restore some balance. ;-)

The paper (you can only read it if you're a LUX member) probably says "strong nothing", I've heard.

Originally posted on October 16th
The dark matter particle may become visible to us in 14 days; or even darker

One of the potentially coming discoveries in particle physics is – no, it's not the discovery what happens when you hit the debt ceiling, it is – the discovery of the dark matter particle.

Update (October 24th): One week from now, we will know what LUX is going to tell us. What's your guess? Answer in this poll:

 What will LUX announce on October 30th? No dark matter signal in their dataApparent confirmation of a sub-10-GeV particleApparent particle much heavier than 10 GeVSomething else: explain pollcode.com free polls

Approximate results after 250 votes or so: 59% nothing, 27% light new particle, 8% heavy new particle, 7% something else. The majority was right.
A war has been taking place between (and within) direct dark matter search experiments. Some teams claim that they have already glimpsed the evidence for a dark matter particle that would be surprisingly light – beneath $10\GeV$ (I like to quote the figure from CDMS II-silicon, $8.6\GeV$). Others, most notably XENON100, keep on imposing upper limits on the cross sections and shout that everyone who has claimed a discovery must be wrong.

LUX in South Dakota is a new player in the war that's been collecting the data for a couple of months. We were promised the first results before the end of 2013.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the moment is coming; it's exactly two weeks away.

SanfordLab.org has released a press release informing us about a media event on October 30th where the first results of LUX will be announced.

LUX should have been more powerful than many of the "Yes camp" experiments (which include CDMS [Si target], CoGeNT [Ge target], DAMA/Libra [Na-I], maybe CRESST-II [Ca-W-O]). If it will say "No", it will be a pretty powerful "No". I actually think that it's somewhat more likely than not that the announced result will be the exciting "Yes" (because the CDMS II-silicon events look highly persuasive to me; and because the planned South Dakota media event seems rather ambitious, with an extra day, October 29th, of preparations and pre-visits and a speech by the South Dakota governor, among other things). But I am extremely, extremely far from any certainty in one way or another. At any rate, it's probably unnecessary to point out that the "Yes" announcement would be far more groundbreaking than the "No" announcement.

As far as I can say, the best available explanation of the particle on the market involves a SUSY model with a light neutralino and a light sbottom. The stau could also be light.

Via Matthew Buckley

Incidentally, on Monday, October 21st, it will be 20 years since the vote in which the Ronald Reagan Collider, also known as the Gippertron and Desertron (sometimes called the SSC by the leftists), was cancelled. David Appell is an unbelievably obnoxious jerk and I learned to use GMail filters because of him but he wrote a pretty insightful piece for SciAm about those frustrating developments two decades ago.

#### snail feedback (199) :

A politician darkening matters means that if dark matter is found he will claim the credit for the discovery. If it is a no, he will claim credit instead for discrediting other experiments.

LOL, the scientists are doing the same, after all.

At least a normal GOP governor, Dennis Daugaard, will be connected with some important science again.

If this turns out to be right, what are the consequences for SUSY?

I look forward to learn what the results will be :-)

Concerning popular media events / reports about physics I like, I have alwas mixed feelings.

They too often do it not right ... :-/

But I hope that the big deal they make out of it this time means that it will be slightly more exciting than a null result ;-)

Cheers

Current theory assumes compactified extra dimensions (CEDs) despite zero empirical evidence. CED trapping potentials cannot be deep enough to invisibly retain compactification, small scales implying big energies. TRIZ! CED trapping potentials can be deep enough to visibly retain compactification - dark matter.

Theorists boast of their promiscuity while empiricists quietly pay child support. My money is on null net output.

Well, if there is a new particle species discovered, the consequences for SUSY would be spectacular because more likely than not, this new particle of dark matter would be the lightest supersymmetric particle, lightest superpartner, the LSP.

So not only the existence of SUSY would be "nearly" established; people could start to study much more about what kind of SUSY is realized in the Universe around us.

You have obviously trolled a lot about Physics on many blogs.

Go to some crackpot forum or something. Don't spoil nice blogs like TRF.

-1.

It is not going to happen.

"Dark Matter" = invisible matter

It always smells a bit fishy when there is used words like war, competition, pitching next-generation dark matter detector (from the press release), press et cetera :-)

Based on my skeptical point-of-view I suspect that they have found an interaction(s) which *MIGHT* be due to interaction with dark matter. But because of elapsed time (60+ days), too small detector and inadequate funding (blah blah) we need more time, bigger detector and a lots of money in order to be sure that it actually was due to dark matter interaction. That's my bet :-)

That's weird! I thought we had an agreement that you stop wanking while reading my comments ;-D

Huh? That was not me. I don't even known the meaning of "Wanking". ''

Yes, no brainer ;-)

Dark matter and Milgrom acceleration curve-fit the Tully-Fisher relation. Let's uncreate dark matter. Euclid is rigorous. No parameterization exactly flattens the Earth (cartography; E^3 versus S^3). Physical theory is rigorous. No parameterization suppresses chiral artifacts - Chern-Simons parity correction of Einstein-Hilbert action in quantum gravitation; standard model parity violations, chiral anomalies, symmetry breakings, SUSY failure. Boson photon vacuum mirror symmetries are not exactly true for fermionic matter.

Vacuum trace chiral anisotropy selective to fermionic matter leaks Noetherian vacuum isotropy coupled to angular momentum conservation as MOND's 1.2×10^(-10) m/s^2 Milgrom acceleration. I predict XENON 100 is correct. LUX will see nothing but trace decay of sub-parts-per-billion leaked fission reactor noble gas radioisotopes.

I offer a testable alternative to 45 years of empirically failed quantum gravitation and standard model. Nothing contingent is observed: 10^500 vacua; SUSY, MSSM, solar axions, proton decay. LHC string/brane exotica, sparticles, leptoquarks, lazy photons, WIMPs, supersymmetry exotica, extra-dimensions, magnetic monopoles, mini-black holes, Randall-Sundrum 5-D phenomena (gravitons, K-K gluons, etc.), ADS/CFT duality evidence, colorons, fractionally charged particles...

A 90-day geometric Eötvös experiment in existing bench top apparatus is an orthogonal observation. If those three months sum to nothing, 45 years of Phys. Rev. D can resume until physics runs out of alphabets to label reparameterizations.

You need to improve your sales technique ;-).

The first step could be to update the brand from Uncle Al to Auntie Tipper. ;-)

Mesons are of five types: scalar, axial vector, tensor; pseudoscalar, vector. The last two are odd-parity. If the vacuum had an unexpected trace chiral background selective toward matter, then pseudoscalar and vector mesons would throw smoothly symmetric particle theory into hissy fits. Chiral axial and non-Abelian anomalies would be observed. They would be patched with epicycles of "corrections."

Look 'em up, Luboš. Pseudoscalar and vector mesons are theoretic dirty birds.

Dear Auntie Tipper, there is nothing wrote about negative-parity particles which are as allowed and as real as positive-parity ones, may be easily obtained by slightly different orbital (even/odd) wave functions, and don't imply any anomalies because the conservation of parity works perfectly even when some multiplicative factors are negative -in fact, without them, the parity conservation would be tautological and vacuous.

"Empirically failed Standard Model"

This is the first time I'm going to use the "LOL" acronym .

reader PI is A constant said...

Dear Lumo,
If you were to bet with someone about the result of this experiments:
(1) What would be the amount of money you will bet with?
(2) In favour of what result would you bet?
Regards.

reader 10^24th digit of Pi said...

Lobus, off topic, "arxiv.org/abs/1310.4691 :Time From Quantum Entanglement: An Experimental Illustration"

From the popular article I read I am skeptical that they have shown that time emerges from entanglement, but it would be a big breakthrough if right.

It is incredible how completely that paper is being misunderstood.

There is an idea in quantum cosmology that maybe the wavefunction of the universe does not change, that it can be regarded as a superposition of clocks entangled with non-clocks. It's as if the wavefunction of (Schrodinger's cat + clock on the wall) was |midnight>|sleeping>+|6am>|eating>+|midday>|napping>+|6pm>|playingwithstring>. So the cat+clock wavefunction is unchanging, but the different times correspond to different parts of the superposition and different activities of the cat.

What they did, in their experiment, was to entangle photons so as to produce a globally static superposition, but with the individual photon states being correlated as above, so that one could be the clock to the other. So it's a nice technical accomplishment, but the real debate here is conceptual, there's no way it can be decided experimentally.

Please, update this poster with the news from today ;-)

Ah ok,

Now I see that he poked around in chat and asked a meta question about the on-topicness of experimental and applied physics ...
This seems a it strange to me, he should know that when he asks (experimental and applied) questions in the context of the research he is doing, they would be welcome...
He seems to be a good serious physicist in his field of expertise, so he could be more selfconfident.

I remember too unce having pinged you with an @ ...

By welcome, you mean "just as welcomed as a TP question" , which is not very much : )

Exactly ... :-D

Heartily welcome are only popular and very basic questions these times ...

susy is a symmetry wrongly applied. strings dont make any prediction , like say ratio of some masses . moreover strings theory to get realistic models, becomes a frankestein ( aka heterotic string ) . too bad HEP was hijacked by mathematicians with no physical intuition whatsoever. no wimps , as I predicted.

"The
paper... probably says 'strong nothing'
" 4.9% ordinary matter,
26.8% dark matter, 68.3% dark energy" 27% of the CMB universe is
missing. " Explain the Tully-Fisher relation absent dark matter.
MoND's Milgrom acceleration is universal for spiral galaxies. Source that trace
non-conservation of angular momentum.

A
geometric Eötvös experiment sources 1) Milgrom acceleration through Noetherian
leakage of a discontinuous trace vacuum symmetry toward matter; 2) particle
theory symmetry breakings and primordial matter vs. antimatter imbalance; 3) string/M-theory
and quantum gravitation failures from a weak founding postulate; and validates GR superset classical
ECKS gravitation as the source of geometric EP violation.

One
experiment, existing bench top apparatus, 90 days; and zero theoretic curve-fittings or Yukawa alpha-lambda cheats. If physics cannot understand it, chemistry does. Do it.

"The paper (you can only read it if you're a LUX member) "

At this hour is free acces.

Tapping Angela Merkel's phone, and monitoring activities of a regular citizen who might have a special interest in blowing up things in another country, are really separate topics that should not be lumped together.

Merkel's thing just makes me laugh. I try to take it seriously and simply can't, and I am pretty sure I would have had the same reaction to a report that Bundesnachrichtendienst tapped Obama's phone. It's protecting the regular guy's privacy that I take seriously.

My own reaction to Snowden's original revelations about domestic surveillance was outrage, but when I cooled off a bit and thought about it, I realized that some of it is probably unavoidable.

Internationally, I came up with the following hypothetical situation as food for thought. It's 1960's, or 1970's, or whatever, and some IRA folks are hiding out in the US hatching their plans. Would I really be ticked off if British intelligence did a bit of wiretapping on the US soil to see if anything is about to go off back home? Did they ever actually do such a thing? Who is to know.

Oh, and the Wikipedia page on BND states that, "The BND acts as an early warning system to alert the German government
to threats to German interests from abroad. It depends heavily on
wiretapping and electronic surveillance of international communications." Does that not sound familiar?

No, it's not.

You misunderstood me. I wanted to say that you're only allowed to click at the hyperlink if you are a member. ;-)

Yes, the Fed is a private institution with shareholders who are basically the large investment banks. These banks "ARE" the US government. The elected govt is a puppet show :)

Institutional economics is part of Chicago School, are you familiar with the late Ronald Coase's work? I think you are simplistic in your assessment of that body of thought.

It's actually illegal for the Federal Reserve to purchase bonds directly from the U.S. Treasury. Instead, it purchases them from the major investment banks (e.g., Goldman-Sachs), which make money on every sale, which is one reason that such banks are very happy that QE exists.

I might speculate that the major investment banks just possibly had something to do with prohibiting the Fed from buying U.S. bonds directly from the Treasury.

I am familiar with Dr. Coase thank you. He did some wonderful work and had some good ideas. The problem is that Coase allows the State to meddle in the economy and make the system less efficient.

And the Chicago school fails because of its methodology. By assuming that nothing can be learned about the real word without empirical testing and arguing that models should not be rejected because their premises are not true it is trapped in a dead end from which there is no exit.

I believe Coase's point was that if transaction costs rule out bargaining between parties, there might be a role for other agents, such as the government.

Printing a trillion a year isn't a problem?! The Fed's balance sheet has ballooned by several trillion dollars. Santelli is right to be opposed to this kind of unprecedented intervention in the market. He's joined in that concern by all manner of economists from just about every point on the political spectrum.

We don't need government to meet market needs. As Coase himself point the state is very good at limiting competition.

Now a well meaning user has asked for help on MSO, since he feels that Physics SE is dying.

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/203643/184300

But of course this will be in vain, as SE will at most "help" in such a way that even the last remaining physicists will be driven away very quickly.

Well, stan, in that case, you and "all manner of economists from just about every point of the political spectrum" misunderstand basic principles and mechanisms of economics. While the fear of a large amount of printed money may be praised, at the level of rational thought, such a fear is unsubstantiated.

Printing of the money isn't a problem. The balance sheet is completely irrelevant. It's the debt (some financial relationship that has two different sides) that matters and the debt isn't modified if you just print the money and increase the balance sheet, the debt doesn't change.

If Bernanke prints 50 trillion dollars in banknotes and locks them in the basement, the effect on the economy is zero. That's really the point. The money only starts to matter if it circulates and is used to say that one person owes another person (or company or government etc.).

But whether it happens is given by the effective interest rates, by the comparison of the attractiveness of consumption and all available kinds of investments. But those things don't change if long-term bonds are bought back and replaced by short-term financial products etc.

If you believe that markets are even reasonably efficient, then they would anticipate any inevitable inflation that would result from $80 billion/month asset purchases by the Fed. So, free market fundamentalists like you rail against a policy, because you think the market is too stupid to properly price in future inflation. But then, coherent logic never was found in anyone with the teabagger religion. reader Scott Sampson said... While I understand you are not making absolute claims about market efficiency here, your praise of new classical economics, the foundations of which are largely based on rational expectations, is in direct contradiction to the belief in anything like asset bubbles, even if those "bubbles" are to some degree the result of government policies. One should expect rational investors to treat bubbles that can burst suddenly, with sometimes severe consequences for those long bubble assets, with sufficient caution as to disallow their existence. Government misallocation should lead to inefficiencies in markets,but not asset bubbles that are fed by private investors, no matter the bias governments create, even if through moral hazard. The existence of such bubbles, by definition, indicate market expectations being horribly wrong for sometimes many years. More fundamentally, there are limits to the efficiency of stock markets. A lack of arbitrage opportunities is inconsistent with rational actors choosing to invest in individual stocks, yet if every investor just invests in broader indexes or other broad strategies, it would open up arbitrage opportunities. There is presumably an equilibrium realized, perhaps a dynamic one, that means there are limits to market efficiency. As with so many other human endeavors, there is a relatively small number of those with elite skills, with the remaining left to average returns or worse, on average. reader Scott Sampson said... I would also point out, relating to your comments on QE, that markets seem to very much disagree with you and Fama. Every time there is even a hint of a change in the QE program, markets react accordingly, sharply. Stock prices fall with hints at tapering QE, while they rise at hints of increasing its duration or intensity. Forward guidance is the key. Fama points out that the Fed is paying interest on reserves, which makes things more complicated than necessary. So it's all about the currency stock now instead of the monetary base. Further, even in the presence of significant fiscal austerity this year, with tax increases and the sequester spending cuts(with a falling deficit), economic growth is similar to last year. If QE3, which began about this time last year, isn't responsible, what is? And by the way, money drops don't necessarily produce inflation. It all depends on how permanent the markets think the increase in the money supply will be. If the Fed dropped$10 trillion dollars out of helicopters tomorrow, but simultaneously promised to raise interest rates, raise interest on reserves, or raise reserve requirements to offset higher inflation, the money drop would have little if any effect, assuming the Fed had credibility.

Fama misses a lot in his analysis of Fed policy. Like many others from the Chicago school, like John Cochrane, Casey Mulligan, and Raghuram Rajan, he's often made a fool of himself, though his predictions aren't nearly as wildly incorrect as those of the latter three.

Dear Scott, many investors react because they are irrational and uneducated, brainwashed, or both.

But the point is that by these reactions, they won't generate any higher profit. It's a zero-sum game and all these irrational reactions' effects on the prices are rather quickly undone, restoring the situation in which the market determine the right prices plus minus noise whose average is zero so this noise can't be systematically used to generate profit.

The markets determine pretty much right prices by quantifying the actual intrinsic value of assets at each moments and some pouring of liquidity from one glass to another in completely different assets isn't something that affects the intrinsic value of the asset of interest.

The rational investors who look at the actual intrinsic value of the assets are enough to drive the prices towards the appropriate values. The other investors who sell and buy according to completely different, irrational criteria also influence the prices but the expectation value of the changes coming from their influence is zero so they only add the noise. So the price at any moment is "rightprice" plus minus "noise" where the former is determined by the rational folks and the latter is dominated by all the imperfect and irrational investors, including those who think that the QE program is a big deal.

There is no inflation generated by the $80 billion/month assets purchases because they're just asset swapping - buying one kind of bond and selling another. The effect of such a procedure is ultimately very similar to removing$80 billion in $100 banknotes from the circulation and replacing them with a 10 times greater number of$10 banknotes. The effect is zero, at least to the leading approximation.

Ordinary money may be printed but some other "money" - the long-term bonds - are being bought back so these things just cancel and there's no effect, at least not a predictable large effect whose magnitude would be close to the value $80 billion/month. I am not even sure whether most of the Tea Party folks would agree with me and Fama here - probably not - but I don't care. Whoever misunderstands these basic exercises is just a very lousy economist. reader Luboš Motl said... Well, the government's influences reduce the efficiency of the markets which also means a reduced signal-to-noise ratio and a higher time needed for the markets to find the correct price. That's why bubbles get created and sometimes, when large enough, lead to havoc. However, the more important point is that even with bubbles, there isn't any strategy that systematically allows one to beat the market in the long run. On one hand, a rational maverick investor may realize that a bubble is fake and he may be right and sell the asset. On the other hand, he may still be temporarily beaten because the bubble may continue to grow, and his premature sale will lead to a loss. Even among the people with elite skills, active management etc. is a zero-sum game. If an "elite skill" person finds a strategy to profit, she may be followed by others with "elite skills" and the strategy just stops working. There are just so many strategies of the sort that it makes no sense. The profits and losses are random even among elite-skill folks. reader Dimension10 (Abhimanyu PS) said... 19 seconds ago, he accepted Shog9's "answer" (!) . reader Dilaton said... I have seen it, and even though I think you said the right things and Shog9 will make things even worse if he really steps in, the OP accepting the answer just proves what zealots the participients accusing him of being a sockpuppet of me, you, Ron, Eduardo, and maybe Anna v too?, are ... Now we know for shure which point of view Dmckee has choosen ... Discussing with UV-D is not worth it ... Of course Chris White, an anti string-theory zealot as Lumo would say, who always protects very dumb low-level questions in the close queue, sees not problem in the current state of the site and real physicists leaving it ... If the people who are happy with a low-level/popular/homework Physics SE which rather tolerates and allows attacks on real physicists and there work, are not enough in number in the long run, we will have an easy time to download the data dumb, as you said :-D I will correct the typos etc in my latest blog post later. BTW, if you'd like to have edit/write access etc one the blog, I have seen that I can give it to you. At least when you log in it should be possible .. reader RAF III said... Lubos - They are NOT just asset swapping. A great deal of this new money has gone to major banks which then use it to purchase stocks. The all time highs of the Dow Jones, despite the very poor underlying economy, are the result - and this IS inflation. reader Dimension10 (Abhimanyu PS) said... I am now starting to lose faith even in Qmechanic. This, while not an advanced question, is a perfectly appropriate and interesting question, even though I agree with Nicolas that it is a matter of psychology. A recent string theory= question (now (maybe auto-)deleted) was also closed by Qmechanic because it "belongs on Math". It wasn't even migrated : ( . And a few others. For now, I can just hope that these are just certain human mistakes, and that Qmechanic doesn't wish the same as the 3 mods. reader Luboš Motl said... Dear RAF, I view this comment of yours as being confused at every stage. It's a bit hard to decide where to start. Well, let me start here. Rising stock prices are *not* inflation according to any conventional definition. Inflation is measured as the change of price of a basket of goods and services - and stocks are neither goods nor services. Second, the QE simply doesn't give the banks any reason, incentive, or tools to buy more stocks. The QE means buying the banks' long-term bonds for cash, so this operation increases the price of long-term bonds (and decreases their yields); but it does the opposite thing to what was used to buy the bonds - it decreases the price of short-term bonds (i.e. increases their yields). Effectively, the resulting changes mean that it's better for banks to hold cash or short-term bonds. Stocks have nothing to do with this asset swapping so their attractiveness is exactly what it was before. reader Dimension10 (Abhimanyu PS) said... Huh? Worshipping tpg2114 is not a problem? We all worship Ron Maimon? What? reader Dilaton said... Huh, the seccond link goes to this question http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/54733 which is still open. Did you mean another one? reader Dimension10 (Abhimanyu PS) said... No, it works fine for me. The linked question is a duplicate of the question you link to. reader Dimension10 (Abhimanyu PS) said... The question is only related, not a duplicate. reader Dilaton said... This is a very widely used strategy by trolls: for example below popular physics news articles, trolls often accuse people who understand physics of "worshipping the establishment", whereas the trolls on MSO make similar claims to insult people who rightly so like and appreciate Ron's contributions to phyics ... Seems to be a global symptom of something being rotten in online discussions. reader Dimension10 (Abhimanyu PS) said... In fact, "worshipping Ron Maimon" is a total oxymoron. Didn't @UV-D even read enough of Ron Maimon's posts to realise that he advocates not believing people blindly, of using your own mind ? reader Dilaton said... Ok, I was projected directly to the not quite a duplicate because I was not logged in into PSE ... I agree that it is not exactly the same and could have been nicely answered by people like Urs Schreiber, Mitchell Porter, Lumo, etc ... However, I am aslways a bit worried about such popular questions, as they number of trolls lurking in the background has increased on PSE, such questions have therefore a high probability to attract trolling about string-theory answers and comments ... :-/ Maybe Qmechanic felt the same and choose therefore to close it and direct people to a related discussion. I guess he had no bad intentions there. reader Dilaton said... To be honest, UV-D s recent actions and comments look to me rather unpleasant to say the least and not too much ... I think it is best to ignore him ... reader RAF III said... Sorry Lubos, but it is you who are confused. The rising price of a basket of goods and services is the end result of printed or digitized money working itself through the economy. Rising stock prices are the result of new money being used to purchase stocks - money that simply did not exist previously; e.g. - if every bidder at an auction were given$1,000,000,000,000 of newly printed money the final sale prices of the goods at auction would be far greater than otherwise. This is an immediate, though localized, inflation and in time would affect the basket of goods and services.

QE is simply a euphemism for the creation by fiat of new money. It is not synonomous with asset swapping, about which you are also confused. Your reliance on Wikipedia is amusing. Would you rely on it for AGW or for ANY politicized issue? And make no mistake - this is the most politicized issue.

The fact is that banks have been using this money to purchase stocks for years, whether this comports with your definition of QE or not.

Lubos - I've hesitated to reply, in case I'd be cluttering up the thread by missing the obvious or something. However:

If it's true that the Fed has not been buying securities directly from the Treasury, I'd agree that QE is mere asset-swapping (which is not to say that I'd agree with all that you say about it - I don't know).

But if the Fed has been buying directly, I think this implies that, to obtain the money to buy them, it has been depleting bank reserves and/or selling a huge amount of these securities in its open-market operations and/or "printing money." It certainly hasn't been depleting bank reserves (it has been increasing them), and if it's been selling a huge amount, the Treasury could just as easily have sold them.

If it has been printing money, but the money won't ever "escape" from bank reserves, except back to the Fed, then I'd agree there is an important sense in which it has not been printing money, and, indeed, Bernanke has said that he won't let it escape (though not with the word "escape"), but that's the question, I think.

I didn't know it was illegal for the Fed to buy directly from the Treasury. My question was prompted by the fact that I've read a pretty fair amount of commentary to the effect that it has been buying directly from the Treasury.

Dear RAF, every sentence of your is invalid, kind of a misunderstanding of basic economics.

Stock prices are not rising because some banks are manipulating with them. Stock prices are rising because the value of the companies is rising and it's rising because they physically grow, increase their efficiency, sometimes increase the profit margin, and are simply able to produce more profit - more products and better products - than before. Stock prices were growing long before banks or institutions owned a significant portion of them, and they grow a lot.

Most of the net growth has nothing to do with interventions or inflation. Stocks grow by 10% a year in average which is vastly above the inflation rate in any Western country - and in fact, above the GDP growth rate, too. The GDP growth and stock growth rate don't match because the companies are also growing by absorbing smaller businesses etc. so they're moving up in the chain.

The inflation surely requires the amount of money in the economy to grow - but the growth of the money supply is crucial because the GDP is growing and even if GDP per capita weren't growing, the total population is growing by 1% or so. Using a tool of payment that deflates would be extremely bad because people would keep it (imagine that gold is guaranteed to grow in price, which it's not, but imagine that) and this thing would just stop circulating, becoming useless for the economy. So it's essential to pay with something that doesn't deflate significantly which means something that also has the a priori ability to produce inflation. The task for central banks is to keep the inflation low and fixed according to various rules. It can't really be otherwise in any modern economy. There has to be a non-deflating, stable, objective enough unit of wealth, income, and debt.

Dear Smoking Frog, as I have explained 20 times already, e.g. on CIP's blog, it just doesn't matter when Fed is borrowing from the Treasury or even donating from the Treasury or anything of the sort. It's just moving wealth from one pocket to another and both pockets belong to the government, are controlled by public officials, decide about the default of the U.S., and are owned and funded by the U.S. taxpayers at the end.

Also, it just doesn't matter whether you print $50 trillion of money or not. Whether some money escapes depends on whether people want to borrow. We're mostly in a situation in which people don't want to borrow much even though the interest rate is essentially zero and this situation is about the people's thinking and can't change just because you print$50 trillion in banknotes. They will keep on sitting in the basement.

The will of people to borrow money is dictated by other factors - whether $50 trillion is sitting in a basement isn't one of them. reader Vangel said... "There is no inflation generated by the$80 billion/month assets purchases because they're just asset swapping - buying one kind of bond and selling another."

But this is not true. The Fed is still printing money or creating credit and buying treasuries with it. That is the job of a central bank; to inflate the money supply so that the government can finance its operations without pissing off voters by raising taxes. This is why fiat currencies exist; to remove the discipline that a hard money standard would impose on our political masters.

It just doesn't matter that banknotes with Benjamin Franklin are being printed. The long-term bonds which is just "another type of money" are being removed from the system at the same moment so it's just like replacing each $100 by ten$10 bills.

The bonds and the cash may be formally counted to different layers of the "money supply" but the distinction is immaterial because all the bonds could have been converted to cash (and vice versa), anyway.

So the only thing that such interventions do is to steal some money from those who made bets on bonds with a wrong maturity date and give the money to those who made the right bet about the maturity date - relative reshuffling - but nothing is happening to the economy as a whole.

Lubos - My example of the auction IS basic economics! It is unfortunate that you won't make the effort to understand this.
Furthermore, prices are determined by supply and demand, not by any intrinsic 'value' the commodity might possess (which is a Marxist assumption; how did Pet Rocks succeed?). A stock price will rise if enough people believe that a company's 'value' has increased, and will continue to increase, and then buy it hoping to profit. You have reversed cause and effect here while conflating intrinsic 'value' with price. This too is basic economics.
The statistics of stock market prices and GDP is simply irrelevant here.
Your remarks on inflation and GDP, and the role of central banks are little more than gibberish based on ignorance.

"Well, let me start here. Rising stock prices are *not* inflation according to any conventional definition. Inflation is measured as the change of price of a basket of goods and services - and stocks are neither goods nor services."

I suggest that it is you who is confused. If you pick up one of those old dictionaries before the progressives changed the meaning of language you will find that inflation and deflation referred to the growth of the supply of money and credit. What we have in the modern banking system is inflation because without it the entire system would implode.

What you fail to understand is that all that money creation makes its way into the economy by causing prices to rise. But what you also fail to understand is that the increase does not have to take place in any particular asset class or in consumer goods or even commodities.

In an era where you have massive productivity improvements that are driven by capital investment you will have price pressures that will make goods and services cheaper for consumers. (We have seen this with electronics.) Even goods that have not attracted much in the way of direct capital investment can profit from improved efficiencies of transport and distribution systems. (Wal-Mart was a game changer when it cut massive amounts of fat from distribution costs.)

This means that we should have seen price declines over the past few years as all those productivity gains provided consumers with great benefits. But we didn't because the Fed fought to keep prices stable through its monetary inflation policies. (This is exactly what happened in the late part of the 1920s.)

The trouble with these policies is that they create artificial stability and prevent the markets from liquidating lousy business models that should have been purged from the system. The trouble comes when the manipulation is difficult to maintain because it requires bigger and bigger interventions. This is where the Fed is as \$80 billion is no longer enough to prevent the economy from losing steam.

And this is where the Fed finds itself. Fed governors do not want to see any more "Peter Schiff Was Right" videos. Some know that the Austrian view is correct and can see the predictable pattern forming before their eyes. That puts them in a difficult position as tapering or ending QE makes a lot of sense for the long term but will lead to disaster over the short term. On the other side there is the option to increase QE and admit that there is a problem. While that may possibly help over the short term it is a disaster over the long term for the reasons that the Austrians have given.

People like Fama are academics that are ignorant of how markets work. Fama is not alone because even the supposed Libertarian Monetarist (an oxymoron if ever there were one) Milton Friedman was praising the Fed just before the housing bubble collapse that he did not see coming finally took the system down to the brink. QE was the effort to prevent the liquidation that the popping of the credit driven bubbles in housing and equities should have created. Note that Fama and the QE supporters never saw the bubbles even when the Austrians were jumping up and down and describing what would happen.

I suggest that you do a bit of reading in economics. Human Action is probably the best book to look at but it is probably difficult even for a smart guy like you because it requires far too much time and attention for a busy person. The best place to start might be Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt. Or any one of the tiny pamphlets on money and banking by Rothbard. If you learned economics you would figure out exactly why the model based wisdom that you defend is no different than the model based wisdom in the climate 'science' debate.

Manishearth's most probably neverending refusal to relax the current shooting down of study material/reference request questions and finally implement the new book policy as he promised,

http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4697/reevaluating-the-book-policy

http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/4812/2751

reminds me of some more or less funny "light bulb jokes":

Q: How many blondies are needed to exchange a light bulb ?

A: 5, because (this I would have to look up) ...

Could be mapped in one-to-one correspondence to

Q: How many PSE members are needed to deal with editing a single book/reference question in the course of two weeks?

Thinking about it in this way exposes the ridiculousness of the claim that 5 non-stupid (!) PSE members are needed for editing questions which are coming in with a rate of at most(!) 2 book questions per two weeks.
And it reinforces my feeling that the promis of relaxing the shooting down of these useful to many people questions by adopting a new policy, has never been meant serious right from the start ...

You might have a look at this:

See how most economists were on one side and were cheering on the liquidity injections into the economy while the minority position was correct.

Dear RAF, it is you, not me, whose completely wrong comments are rooted in Marxism because you are saying that the market economy doesn't work.

The market economy does work and the balance of supply and demand drives prices to the right intrinsic prices that quantify how useful or valuable or pleasant etc. the thing is for all the potential buyers or consumers and that guarantees that there won't be shortages or excesses, at least not systematically.

Sorry, I haven't reversed anything. First, something must change about the well-being of the company. Then, second, some people will notice. Third, they will start to buy or sell as a result, and this will change the price. The change of the price - except for the noise added by traders/investors who buy/sell for stupid reasons and therefore (in the long run) randomly - is always a consequence of some preceding actual changes of the intrinsic value of the company.

Your outdated definitions of inflation etc. would clearly be inapplicable today, or they would yield nonsensical numbers that have nothing to do with the things that matter in the economy. It is very important that inflation is measured by the price of things that are actually being sold and bought - sufficiently often and much - and not by the amount of some arbitrarily defined "money". It's always questionable what is counted as money and what isn't and details in such definitions would yield vastly different interest rates.

I don't know but you might partly understand economics as it was imagined and worked in the 18th century but please don't try to talk about the 21st century economics because your ideas are really pathetic.

I am closing this thread because I feel overwhelmed by dozens of comments that seem completely stupid to me and I want neither to waste additional hours with these stupid comments nor allow them to hijack this conversation.

Huh, what is THAT ...?!

http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/82941

are my eyes or my mind betraying me ...?
Cant believe this, must have woken up in the wrong point in time ...?!

Who has woken up at the wrong point in time?

If you mean yourself,

I think Arnold Neumaimer has also woken up at the wrong point in time.

Yes, Arnold has woken up too early at the wrong place, he should have been sleeping peacefully until the upraising of a better world ... :-)

And I am haunted by the shadows of the past which makes me see ghosts, posting answer which can not bee there in reality ...

Have you seen how this dishonest politician (he even admits that he is more up to policying than delivering good content), completely destorts all facts in a completely dishonest manner and turns everything upside down? And those politicians just upvote each othen illegally, as you can see in a comment below this answer

http://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/203723/184300

But I have stopped commenting there, it is simply not constructive anymore.

The misrepresentation of real physicists and their concerns by such politicians, the majority of our own mods who should defend the needs of physicists, and other non-physicists who have taken over the site last December, is simply to overwhelming ...

I am sure this tpg guy now goes after nice advanced technical ST, CFT, etc questions Trimok for example often answers beautifully, which are wrongly tagged as homework ... :-/

Energy Numbers just voted him up 25 rep (It was 2975 since a while, till the comment).

Is this not serial upvoting?.

Yes, see my updated comment including this above. Maybe SE should be characterized as an intenet Maffia, rather than an obscure company nobody knows how they are making their money, what their real goals and hidden intentions are, etc ...

How they deal with (groups of) people whose point of view they dont like resembles indeed what organized crime does in various real world countries.

About Crazy Buddy I am not sure what to think ... He once wanted me to run as a mod in the last elections ;-)

How Shog9 now outrigh insults the knowledgeable people and experts who leave and/or are dissatisfied with the horrible political moderation atmosphere and the taking over of non-physicists he initialized, is unbelievable.

Seems he and SE is not going to "help" PSE finding its final rest and peace by making the data dump easier accessible, at least not at the moment ...

I really have no clue what SE is up too, as they obviously see no need to support research-level sites (the current good high level sites have a nice community and moderation who simply ignores the SE overlords), but are contended with sites deserted by experts.

BTW do you know why knowbody is asking MatOverflow for advice about how to save Physics SE? They know how a free academic community works and would most probably agree with the physicists who get nothing but insulted by Shog9 and many others ...

On MathOverflow, they have such a good community and good moderators (who are researcher in mathematics themself) and nicely defend the interests of their community. See for example their reasonable way of thinking concerning deleting comments and generally content of the site

http://meta.mathoverflow.net/q/1122/30967

This is how it should be, the moderators nicely safeguard the quality of the site and defend its usefulness for the researchers who contriute the content to it, such that if Physics SE would always have been moderated in a similar way (they allow reference requests as defined useful to researchers too, etc ;-) ...), I had absolutely nothing to complain about and could focus on enjoying exclusively doing physics, as I did about the first two years after joining Physics SE.

So it is Robert Harvey who has cause and effect upsite down, and not Yvan Velenik (who is active on MathOverfllow too)

http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5122/i-leave-physics-se-this-is-my-good-bye-note#comment14837_5122

With a moderation team similar to MathOverflow, the quality of the questions on Physics SE would never have dropped like this and there would be no problem of too many experts and knowledgeable people leaving.

BTW I like Colin McFaul's suggestion of a Journal Club, this is a very nice idea. Greetings, to the whole chat room too ;-)

Well, Math Overflow is safe because of their agreement, which even allows them to quit the SE network, if SE breaks the agreement.

Why would they care about the problem on Physics.SE?

This comment by Manish Earth may actually be a true description , if only he wasn't being sarcastic.

Yup, even on Meta-SO, Robert Harvey and Shog9 claim that the MO mods are "strict", etc.

They don't even understand the difference between being "Strict against cranks" and being "Strict against anyone who doesn't like the SE Model".

In other words, their definition of crank is pretty much "anyone who doesn't like the SE Model", and therefore, they are basicwally following a religon, called "Stackism", with Jeff Atwood a god, Shog9 and others half-gods, and these people are the devotees.

WTF? Neumeier is again active???

I don't really think so. When he left, he had just said that he'd reduce his activity very significantly, so that's probably just a rare occassion.

Have a look at these funny images describing the evils in SE:

http://i.stack.imgur.com/wZDsY.png
http://i.stack.imgur.com/KwRpa.jpg

Exactly

On TP.SE the mods were strict against nonsense in the same way as on MathOverflow.

The thing is that on both sites, the mods vigorously defend as it should be the academic community and allow and support what is usefull for them.

Conversely, on other sites the mods vigorously defend the SE POV and the SE model, which wants to make to site useful for random googlers who are not part of the contributing community. This is why the SE model/POV is orthogonal to a free academic community such as MO is and TP.SE has been.

Yesterday I had a nice short chat (not in a chat room of course) with a SCAAAARY strict and quite prominent MO member :-P

Seriously, neither I nor you, Eduardo, Ron (he only stopped contributing to TP for feeling ashamed because he could not deliver a proof he has promised), etc would have to disagree much (if at all) with the mods on MO or TP.SE, but of course Shog9 and Jeff Harvey do not understand this because they dont see the difference.

Some new posts they have now on PSE meta are astonishingly nice (to help people improve their view of the site) and interesting (Colin McFaul's) journal club. But of course this does not resolve the underlying core problems.

Ha ha, maybe we should really write a book and you would be (among other things) the illustrator :-D

BTW UV-D has subscribed to help with the book policy, this is nice of him and helpful.

Of course they do not (have to) care about Physics.SE. But MO is a nice friendly academic community (not to cranks and nonsense of course ...), and when seriously asked for an advice they help by sharing their experience I expect.

Well, these meta.physics posts are just a cooked-up drama to display to the world that they have taken complaints seriously; they'll never come true; ever.

And the new homework policy is stupid, there definitely are a lot of bad homework questions, there are still some very interesting (to name a few) ones, such as the ones asked by user26143, Trung Phan, etc.

To improve the quality, one must impose the existing hw policy, not propose nonsense.

Yup, maybe his "hypocrisy" is really just due to his belief in "Be Nice.".

If the mods want a friendly atmosphere, that means that they should allow "Thanks" comments, not that they should disallow criticism.

A much better policy is "Be Frank.", where frank can be both positive or negative, i.e., "Nice" when the person wants to be nice, and rude when he wants to be rude.

Funny, I'm actually writing a short summary to post on the meta of BPS Overflow when it comes up.

That is why we need the physics data dump too, if they decide to delete everything tagged homework, we will have to retrieve the nice advanced technical posts, that are in my opinion wrongly tagged homework, from there ...

Even the rightly tagged ones. There can of course be homework ST questions, too.
Instead of removing all the hw questions, it's better to remove questions like [kinematics], etc.

In a nice free academic community there optimally are only people seriously interested in the topic of the site, whereas the number of trolls and cranks should be quite low. In addition, the moderators act reasonably and dont close questions the community likes and appreciates for silly political reasons, do not ban people for doing next to nothing wrong, do not delete content considered useful by the community, etc ... In short, they take the community serious and respect the members and their needs.

So there simply are much less reasons to disagree and show annoying people the door in the first place, which means there are less provocations that could lead to what SE calls uncivil discussions and interactions.

However, grown up academics must by no means be restricted in the way they talk and interact with each other, which means to allow for some "robust" discussions (which SE often calls uncivil already) too

This is some kind of a reply to this

http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/11964210#11964210

Some idiot has been downvoting a lot of TRF comments below.

Huh, I had try to vote to reopen the mathematical formulation of holography question, but my reopen vote was gotten rid off.

This may explain it

http://meta.mathoverflow.net/q/1122/30967

and as I noted earlier, they are reading the thread from chat rooms frequented by not exactly the targetted audience.

The downvotes are not really important, as we have moved the main discussion of the new site to the blog ...

Hm just reading the question I first did not understand what it is about either ...

So Sklivvz is now going around und unilaterally closing questions on Physics? This is really bad, as I only too well remember him casting tons ob bad closevotes about a year ago ...

Yes, we no that at least some moderators on Physics allow community moderation, such as for example community reopen of questions, only if they agree with what the community wants, and otherwise supress it by locking questions that have 3,4, or 5 reopen votes and deleting these reopen votes.

No, I wiser strategy which is less publicly visible to prevent community reopening of questions that mods do not want the community let decide about, is deleting each reopen vote as soon as the question appears in the queue. Maybe this is what they are doing now ...

Many things Shog9 said in the course of this discussion

Concerning preventing community reopen of question by locking the
question as soon as it gets reopen votes or deleting single reopen votes

were not less bad and personally attacking than what we say when we steem out here a bit.

As an impartial referee, Shog9 should take claimes that moderators on a site are systematically preventing community reopening of questions serious, and check for example the database since the beginning of the year if indeed questions with many reopen votes had been kicked out of the queue by a mod, reopen votes disappeared, or a mod even locked questions with reopen votes to delete them.

But instead of checking the data base, Shog9 prefered in this discussion to personally attack the messenger. Dont know, SE seems to approve such suppression of real community moderation, so nothing can be done about it.

All one can do is trying to reopen questions that should not be closed anyway ...

I'm pretty sure that's the wrong link...

Huh, how is Shog9 supposed to be an "impartial refree"?.
He is very much related to this.

It was him whou suspended Ron Maimon, which is obviously related to the rest of the issues.

He is from the first estate, with the mods being from the second.

He is payed by Stack Exchange, so if low-level nonsense floods the site, he will be benefitted, since that means more traffic, more SEO, and more Careers.SO, and more money, and more ads-money.

If stupid users get offended by rudeness (related to the Ron Maimon issue), then he will be affected as per the previoius point.

Therefore, he isn;t' at all to be considered as a neutral/unbiased refree.

Manish Earth's claim that his EP program is mostly Physics is totally vacbuous.

IIT Bombay doesn't even have pure physics! And it's well-known that Engineering Physics courses in IITs are basically totally Engineering, due to staff crunches in the IIT's Physics department.

I have corrected the link ...

I just got pinged about a Google hangout, but was not successful in following the link to find out what exactly it is about. Maybe it is about bringing the most disagreeing people together at a "round table" (not sure if this term is defined in English speaking countries), to get the worst issues and disagreements resolved?

I would support this but do not have much time before Thursday (preparing an important talk for Wednesday), and that people are all in different time zones should be considered.

BTW readers outside the originally targetted audience of this thread ;-), do not have to take everything we say here too serious...

Some discussions and comments here can be looked at as pertaining to a sometimes more, sometimes less wild regulars table.

At least in Germany, regulars tables are used by people to steem of about everything they think is wrong with the country, governement, etc ...

And of course individual politicians and their actions get lively discussed too ...

http://rosserer-wirt.de/images/bildergalerie/stammtisch/stammtisch-8.png

Here, a picture of Maximilien de Dilaton:

http://i.imgur.com/6VP7kFY.png

dmckee has frozen the PO chat room; oh well.

Yes, I just noted that the PhysicsOverflow chatroom is gone ...

And you seem to be again under a donwvote attack of people (or a gang who obstinately wants to prevent you from accessing the higher-level review queues even though you do a better job than many of the high-rep non-physicists there ...) who know how to avoid triggering the serial downvote script to revert them ...

http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/23119/dimension10?tab=reputation

Have you seen Sklivvz listing people with most swear-words (wonder how they have defined these) or the in his opinion worst comments in chat? The second table features some of the best and most knowledgeable people on the site ...

http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/11982925#11982925

It isn't *gone*, it's just frozen.
http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/10948
I've saved the 26 transcripts of the chat room on the wayback machine.

Those aren't swear words. See the qquery, the "swear word" is "-1:" .

By the way, looking at the voters list, the downvoter is Colin McFaul.

This does not surprise me at all ... :-/

It is very dishonest of him to downvote your posts, even though he has no clue about the corresponding topic, just because he dislikes you

Does your downvoter detecter now work properly ... ;-)

I don't care about the downvotes, as long as the questions are restored.

The detector isn't working; it just plonks random posts, sometimes multiple times.

Yes. Excellent place for some out of the box thoughts.

Yes

One more try if picture fails to post ... well I will try later

... :-D

Yay, Qmechanic helped us reopen this question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/83117/revisions

On the other hand, Slikzw is deleting any comment opposing his answers. In a recent answer, he made a totally dubious claim, stating that it is incorrect to use natural units.

When I pointed out the flaw in his answer, my comment got immedisately deleted.

I had already even posted a separate answer a long time back stating the opposite of what Slikzw states, and I hope that won't get deleted too.

I'm now going to repost the comment, and see if he deletes my downvote, too.

Yep, this is nice of Qmechanic :-)

he also reopend that string theory question

http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/26225

People like Sklivvz having to much rep and therefore power is really annoying. It is not the first time that he "reports" what others say or think without judging it, maybe he is simply not knowledgeable enough about the correponding topics. This would be ok, I he would not insist that the misleading things he "reposted" are correct, even though people who are more knowldedgeable than him point out the errors or wrong things.

For example concerning this rather nice question, he insisted stubbornly that it is about quantum interpretation simply because a very misleading popular article he has read said so ...

http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/49936

Insisting on ones own or others misconceptions and refusing to be corrected by more knowledgeable people, is a big no-go attitude in science ...

And in my opinion deleting comments that point out errors and misconceptions is an outright abuse of moderation powers ... :-/

Happily I do not often look into questions and answers the high-rep non-physicists post, but when it happens by chance I am often shocked how blatantly wrong up to misleading things some of these people are able to post and they even get highly upvoted for it ... !

Sklivvz posting wrong things and insisting on it is no very bad since he has a highr order diamond: people with not mach physics knowledge of their own will believe that everything he says is right because of his diamond and his more than 6k rep.

John Rennie, who answers tons of popular and basic questions, sometimes posts not exactly right or too pessimistic about modern physics answers too. But he is a nice guy and conversely to Sklivvz he accepts it when being told wrong by people who know better and willing to correct his answers if needed ...

Slikzw is like a typical wikipedia administrator.

By the way, I think that even though John Rennie answers a lot of pop-level questions, he has shown himself to be a rather very knowledgeable person, well at least in terms of GR and QFT.

Yes, he is ok ;-)

...even though I sometimes disagree with his decisions in the review queues (too political), for example he closevoted the "Unexpected Breakthrough" question and such things ... :-/

tpg2114 seems to go after technical question tagged homework now indeed

http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/26331

Poor nice

http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/26143/user26143

we had to encourage him because he always felt stupid about his nice legitimate technical questions the first time he was on the site. And now it may well be that people like tpg2114 and others will closevote/downvote-attack his technical (string theory, CFT, etc ) questions, because they are IMO unnecessarily tagged with homework ... :-/

@Dimension10 (Abhimanyu PS) you should flag this chat comment as offensive

http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/12012933#12012933

Should we bet that Chris White, after insulting Urs Schreiber and his work, is allowed to blatantly insult others and callling them names without any consequences, whereas others like you for example get banned for doing much less ... :-/

The review queue you linked to isn't exactly a technical high-level question; it's just basic Schrodinger QM, after all. I still don't understand how that' is such a bad hw question, though.

I haven't seen tpg2114 abusing his 3k powers yet; he may have, but I haven't seen it;.

user26143's questions are not always *wrongly* tagged as homework, sometimes they really are hw, but unlike most hw-askers, he genuinely is interested in Physics.

However, his questions are often very high-level, or interestingm, and they should definitely not be closed.

Um, No... Why should I flag it?

He just is trying to use the same words that I, you, etc., use, to see if I will get offended...

Except, he doesn't know *how* to use them; no reasoning, etc.

Maybe I was wrong about tpg2114 not abusing his powers. I had recently tried to reopen some stuff...

http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/12017686#12017686

http://i.stack.imgur.com/e88QX.png

Note to the people who are not the targetted audience here: I was somehow unable to upload the image directly onto imgur, so just used a random question on SE, but I didn't post it, anyway.

I just new that tpg2114 is going to attack legitimate technical string-theory, CFT etc questions who are wrongly tagged with homework, see this comment and the following discussion

http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/12017896#12017896

This really drives me up the wall, he probably has always be planning attacking the nice questions of user26143 among other things, and Trimok and others have given him so nice and useful answers ...:-((( !

People who have no clue about ST, CFT and other advanced topics should not be allowed to attack such questions! On MO people refrain from judging question in tags they have no clue about, whereas on Physics everybody feels entitled to judge and attack questions about topics he knows nothing about ... :-/

We will urgently have to be able to import questions form the physics SE too on the new site, to save advanced topics technical questions. However, if they delete them now on Physics, we will probably have a problem extracting them from the data dump. Will have to check if they write something on MSO about this ...

I have downloaded the September data dump, and it's not that heavy (The 7Z file is just like 65 MB, though once you extract it, it;'s 324 MB), and I see that it containes:
- Users
- Posts
- Post History
I guess we could do without the badges, since Q2A has no badges anyway (except with the badges plug-in, but I don't think we need that).

The TP data dump would obviously be much smaller (less than a 500 questionsd, anyway).

I think I've seen a Q2A post about mass-deleteing all questions tagged with a particular tag, so that may be a useful tool, for deleting kinematics, newtonian-mechanics, etc., questions.

We can't do the same with questions on Lagrangians, for example, because there are even stringy questions tagged as "lagrangian-formalism", since they may have to do with obtaining EOMs, etc., from Lagrangians and action principles.

My nice technical advicer said that the data dump(s) have to be imported bevore anything else is done with a new Q2A site, so I will ask him to import the Semptember data dump too into his own test site. He said he is making good progress by the way :-)

No I'm gonna read about the Milner New Horizon prize, this is something nice and will cheer me up ... :-)

HOWEVER, I have uploaded the 7z file here:.

Q2A seems to have a plug-in for tag wikis, but there are two major problems:
- It's an environment for a really short list of lines, like a tag wiki excerpt; you can't write an entire tag wiki with it.
- Nobody can edit it, which is totally opposed to the real purpose of a tag wiki.
So I guess it's better to just store tag wikis on the Psi Epsilon Wikia.

Hm, surprisingly, the serial downvoter is Crazy Buddy, the very same person who had actually supported Ron during the question . . . !

Same goes for Manish Earth, actually. He was actually leaning sluightly towards Ron's side in the do we agree quwestion.

Totally Pointless Guy the 2114th "leave closed"s this question which I had VTROed:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/26432

and even alerts Manish Earth in chat to lock it.

Also this:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/reopen/26431

Yet he wants to leave this open:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/26452

@Dimension10 (Abhimanyu PS)

I also saw the chat discussion.and am curious too...

The wayback machine doesn't have it archived. Nor does webcache.google. I'll ask him to post the answer somewhere else outside the evil realm of SE, such as here, for example.

And yes, it will be a good idea to replace the link, too.

But first, I need to report a spam advertisement on my wiki.

Interesting, Ron Maimon is the 4864th user on Phys.SE, and the 4864th user on Skep.SE is Andrew Maiman.

HUH? Skeptics.SE cleared everything on RM's profile?!
WHAT?!

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/6256/ron-maimon

It was something like,

"This site has repeatedly suspended me for not citing sources. I believe that citing sources is just an attribute of being submissive to..."

http://web.archive.org/web/20130501035157/http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/6256/ron-maimon

Ok, I've now changed the links on all my profiles, and also asked Thomas Klimpel to post his answer here.

Oh, the answer tried to say "Vote more" and Manish Earth miraculously thought that it was' not an answer.

Did they suspend him before or after deleting his "about me"?

It contained absolutely nothing wrong or deletion worthy, just some inconvenient truth and justified criticism...

And we know both that the ruling cast all over the SE network does not appreciate being told some unconenient thruths and criticism of what they do, the SE model, etc ...

They deal with criticism very agressively by deletion, suspensions, etc instead of considering if people who critisise them could have a valid point. And they immediately demonize even very nice people (such as Eduardo) or the innocent Vanished User (who just was honestly in sorrow about Physics SE) who (seemingly) dare to criticise things :-/

Yes, as it is for example well known from Eastern Germany, to be successful in suppresing any potentially upcoming civil disobediance (on Physics SE for example community reopening of questions), any non democratic regime needs informers who spy on their neighbors and allert the appropriate governement agency, as soon as they observe or suspect something going on that potentially violates the official party line ... :-/

It is shocking how that idiot Manish Earth says that RM has had no net effort on Physics.SE.

http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/71/conversation/rmpsepse-according-to-manish-earth

He didn't even refute my reply:

@ManishEarth WHAT? So, if all of Ron Maimon's posts were erased, and every trace of his contribution to Physics.SE were erased, then there would be no difference to Physics.SE?

except with a "@DIMension10 Does the word "net value" mean anything to you?", ...

To which I replied: "@ManishEarth Does the phrase "every trace of his contribution" mean anything to you? That means his so-called "disruptcion" (which i do not consider disruptioun, at all) too.

So, it would be basically as if Ron Maimon didn't exist at all.

Would Phys.SEs be the same?."

And to that he didn't refute, so that means he really thinks that RM didn't contribute to Physics.SE.

He even says that RM "Attackecd" 't Hooft, whereas that "attack" was likely to be just criticism.

Furthermore, he dishonestly says that "only 2" posts were deleted.

Yes, the SE politicians prefer G-rated kindergarten-level sites appropriate for being read by 6 year old kids that do not contain anything that could potentially make them cry, to high-level academic sites frequented by grown-up or even well-known researchers who make use of their right to have "robust" discusions when disagreeing from a scientific point of view about stuff etc ... By the attack against t'Hooft Manishearth probably meant a discussion where Ron said to him "-1, you are wrong because of ... physics explanations ..."

This is why they can so easily and without the slightest remorse dispense with experts and knowledgable people, as soon as these experts do or say anything that is absolutely normal in an accademic community but would potentiallly make 6 year old kids feel uneasy.

None of the SE politicians would ever admit that it is wrong to get rid of experts and knowledgeable people for no good (political) reasons of course ...

It is some kind of interesting to see that even unbiased observers from the outside note that there is something deeply wrong on (Physics) SE now ...

Huh, I almost cant believe that Ron only asked 6 questions and gave 2 answers on Skeptics SE ...

They must be deleting all of his contributions now, to erase any trace of his existance.

Will they do the same on Physics too ...?
It would not surprise me ...

Maybe, given that Manish Earth says that Ron Maimon has only caused a net "ddisruption" Physics.SE.

If you look at an even older version of his profile: http://web.archive.org/web/20120525051810/http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/6256/ron-maimon

"Is modern String Theory stuck in the “no predictions” land?"

This answer was at a +6.

However, that answer is now deleted, and Larian LeQuella's outright stupid answer is accepted.

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/a/2546/14079

That answer by Larian LeQuella obviously just repeates nonsense popular media rubbish.

I could bet that Ron Maimon gave a much better answer, but it was deleted because some obnoxious (a very nice word stolen from Lubos) idiots thought it didn't cite any refreencse, and so on and so fourth (now, was that "fourth" 'or' "forth"?).

It is forth in this context ;-)

SE promoting attacks and trolling on ST is always a very bad thing, even if it happens on Skeptics insetead of Physics. I'll have to create an account on Skeptics ...

The removal of the profile was a misunderstanding, we generally don't edit user profiles unless they contain seriously troubling content like e.g. hate speech. But there is no undo button for that.

Fabian
Skeptics Moderator

I'm one of those "obnoxious idiots" that remove posts that don't cite any references on Skeptics. Having well-referenced answers is the entire point of the site, so I really don't understand why you would post on Skeptics if you think references are useless.

If you disagree with our rules, you're free to post somewhere else, nobody forced Ron to post on Skeptics. Our rules are pretty clear, if you don't agree with them just don't post on our site.

Fabian
Skeptics Moderator

Fabian

I can't reply to your comment because it is still "not active", so I'll post my reply here:

---------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, nonsense.

Have you read Ron Maimon's old profile (until you people deleted that too) on skeptics?

This website has persistently and repeatedly suspended me for posting and subsequently defending sincere answers which did not cave in to the sourcing requirements. I don't believe it is useful or skeptical, as it is relying on authority to determine accuracy of claims, something which Aristotlism shows is ineffective as a method of getting at truth. So no more participation from me.

I think that most persistent false beliefs that skeptics attack have a non-fictitious and non-magical scientifically demonstrable counterpart that must be isolated and described completely before the false belief will completely die. I also worry that skepticism is often abused in order to suppress good new ideas, as it suppressed heliocentrism in ancient times. I hope that the skepticism on this site will be true skepticism, and not political censorship.

And more and more wrongly closed questions (e.g: http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/26618)

Ok, what about his posts? For example his answer to the string theory question Dimension10 linked to? Can that be undeleted since the other answer is not satisfactory to say the least from a physics point of view?

This post (and the others that were deleted) don't contain any references, they simply don't fulfill our rules. All answers are required to provide sufficient references, that is the main rule of the site and it's defining characteristic.

This has nothing to do with Ron in particular, this is a general rule we enforce.

There are way too many bad closevoters there, and I bet they will soon go after user26143 s nice questions too. Heck the question was a nice advanced technical post and should have been left alone :-(.

Can you make a lidtvof questions that need reopen, including this one? But not on Physics Meta ... :-P

Maybe you could edit the question to enhance what is asked and put it into the reopen queue? Maybe the bad closevoters are then not able to say leave closed to the same question they just closed? Or you should be able to say reopen too, even though you voted leavo open.

Maybe a good idea...

By the way, I just noticed the OP of the question I linked to is an anti-string-theory troll. (see his "About", he is Doug Sweetser, the same person who said that compactification is not dimensionally consistent : )

Anyway, but the question is still good.

Funny, just got this in my spam. Probably some crackpot mass-emailing his crackpot rubbish. Funnily enough, the site his "paper" is hosted claims to have designed Windows Vista : )

==Amplituhedron==

Dear Fellows,

I am pleased to tell you that the geometric figure mentioned above is one of the consequence of the ABC Conjecture. I have found that the second consequence (next paper) could be the most important issue after E=mc². You can find the paper on the Abc here: http://one-zero.eu/resources/Riemann.pdf

Best Regards,

Tms
------------------------------------------

So, the amplitidihedron is now

Look at this crackpot:

http://one-zero.eu/resources/Riemann.pdf

Funniest thing I've ever seen, probably generared by a research-paper generator.

Coupled with a spam-generator which mass-emails this to everyone.

Ha ha yes, only Warren Siegel's joke papers are even funnier

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/

The notation in the crackpot paper reminds me of the notation in some of them ... :-D

And they are doing it gain, abusing the list question issue to get rid of good question that may have rightly so more than one (3,4,5) good answers:

http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/12073007#12073007

Neither on MathOverflow nor on TP.SE would this question have any problems, instead it would get nice interesting answers from knowledgeable people ...

Yup, I remember seeing a link to his papers in a comment of yours. It was coupled to an introduction to String Field Theory.

Maybe you are right and too many things are broken...

Will probably have to say more later ...

Regarding the new site, by the way,
- The next data dump will only arrive at the end of December.
- There have been some good questions after September.
- By the end of December, many previously existing good questions would have been deleted, since I can see that a a *lot* of wrongly closed/wrongly hw-tagged questions have been deleted, since searches such as [string-theory] closed:1 do not yield much.

Therefore, I think, that we must somehow use the September data dump, and manually add the newer good questions.

Now, another problem is attribution. CC by SA demands that we must still give details like a link to the posters (I think that for ethical reasons, we should also give attribution to the editors), and to the original questions (except of course for the TP.SE questions).

Does this happen automatically when the you import the questions.

About the Attribution we will have to be very careful indeed, as it is not guaranteed that all reactions to the new site (in particular by people who are not interested in joining and contributing ...) will be positive ...

Yes, for the TP questions a link to the closed site in Area51 will be enough. Questions from Physics SE, when importing them there might be a similar problem as with the emails from TP, not sure ... In the worst case, we will have some manual work to do ...

I just checked user26143's profile, his 23 questions with the homework tag are untouched, for now ...

Colin McFaul's answer here is quite reasonable

http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5172

and it would probably be a good idea to categorize the homework questions accordingly and simple remove homework from the 4. high-level category.

Category 1. -3. could then be safely ignored without missing good questions (from user26143, and some other good ones) ...

Ron was abrasive, actively belittled the expertise of anyone he disagreed with, and would interweave unpublished and unproven results of his own with actual real research. He was clearly very smart, but he was also a huge troll when he wanted to be. I caught him saying wrong things about general relativity several times, and it resulted in him flaming me (examples have been deleted, which I disagree with)

A single line of Phys.SE's data dump looks like this:

" OwnerUserId="7" LastEditorUserId="520" LastEditDate="2012-08-19T23:00:18.417" LastActivityDate="2012-08-20T09:16:00.860" Title="What is spin as it relates to subatomic particles?" Tags="" AnswerCount="3"CommentCount="8" FavoriteCount="4"/>

Just to get to know the postTypes, I made this little query using Data.Staock Exchange

http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/147258/select-from-posttypes

I'm confused at what they mean by a "wiki", but I'll come to that later.

The owner user id is there, but the owner's name isn't, which is a bit of a problem for attribution.

However, I think the problem can be fixed with the "Users" XML file.

But giving the links, etc., maybe difficult. Which means we may indeed have manual work to do.

I managed to find that there are roughly about 4000 possibly interesting questions on Physics.SE, so if at least 8 people volunteer to help out, and one person does 10 a day (on average, some people could be very busy, and others not at all), we'll take 50 days to finish adding attributions to all...

That will be quite trouble some, so that's obviously not a possible solution, since it's impractical to keep a site online, yet private, for 50 days.

One plausible solution may be to have an automated script to do this.

The script would have to be progqrammed to do the following.

Names of the post editors, etc. (which is not required by CC-SA, but I think it's unfair to not acknowledge their efforts), would probably come automatically when importing the post history.

I don't know how hard or how easy making such a script would be, but you could ask your technical expert.

Now, my other confusion is about what this "Wiki" thing is, but I guess that doesn't really matter.

There are two "wiki"s that I see in the data dump. Row 6126 and Row 6127. Here's 6126: .

quantum-interpretations tag is recommended instead for those cases. Since physics concerns itself with studying nature through observation, most philosophy questions are off topic for this site. An acceptable philosophy question has to be grounded in an established theory of physics. " OwnerUserId="-1"LastEditorUserId="124" LastEditDate="2011-02-28T21:27:04.913" LastActivityDate="2011-02-28T21:27:04.913"/>

In the context of physics, philosophical questions are those which address the underlying meaning of physical principles. This could include questions about the interpretations of quantum mechanics, although the [tag:quantum-interpretations] tag is recommended instead for those cases.

Since physics concerns itself with studying nature through observation, most philosophy questions are off topic for this site.

Createor: Community

This looks llike a tag wiki (or maybe a tag wiki excerpt), but it isn't, because
- A tag wiki has a postTypeId of 5, and a tag wiki excerpt has one of 4.
- Tag Wikis and Tag Wiki Excerpts appear in searches, but addding these above contents to the search box unfortunately doesn't reveal anything.

So I'm quite confused at what this is.

Ok, anyway, I'm bored of writeing, and I'll stop now.

What? Why the close votes? http://physics.stackexchange.com/review/close/26679

I think that Physics.SE has now officially taken high-level Physics out of its scope. They even migrated this question to Maths Overflow.

A better home for the question, though.

Too many people misuse closevetes to express that they dont undmerstand a question because the topic is not in their domain of nowledge or above their level. Too bad that I can not cast the third leave open for the first question.

The migration to MO somehow made me chuckle. It is far less annoying, rather similar migrating to TP because it is research level. In fact I would be happy if MO could give high level physics question asylum, until we get the new site running...

However, I wonder which knownothing dimwit has attacked the second question, for the first one I can see the names of some agressors ...

That too, the close reason was that it is "unclear what you're asking" : )

The migrater is Manish Earth. However, it is good that they migrate the questions there, even thouwgh it is quite scary if anyone gives a mathematically rigorous answer there : ), but the "Sebastian Palaceuox" is mainly an MO user, so that's fine for him.

Thanks for looking at this, it will certainly help to fullfill tha attribution as described in the readme that is contained in the data dump.

I guess that our technical expert will be able to help with finding a reasonable and not too time consuming solution :-)

Haha, I just realised that dmckee's 1-week suspending of me (my first, shorter, suspension) actually led to the Psi Epsilon Wikia.

After the suspension, I decided to do something else, and I started editing wikipedia. Then I got frustrated of the politics there (I even got indefinitely banned there for being a sockpuppet of an account I don't even remember existed, and for making the better articles (more mathematical ones) as main, and the bad ones (pop-sci crap), as "Introduction to...") and started the Psi Epsilon Wikia.

So, I should probably thank dmckee : )

Yes, and I got the impression that some nice string theorists are lurking at MO too, from reading some questions and answers in certain tags :-)

I have seen that tpg2114 is closevoting quite a lot of legitimate technical questions that contain a fair amount of LaTex ...
Some people's activity in the higher-level review queue needs to be watched a bit and there statistically signigicant amount of bad closevotes need to be countered by leave open, they say leave open to stupid low-level questions, and (unfortunately) prevent reopening of good questions :-/

Good that you sometimes have been able to provide the third leave open needed :-)

I guess that finally the bad policies and incompetent close / leave closed voters on Physics SE will finally lead to a PhysicsOverflow about which many people (including Hendrik van Hees for example) will be happy :-D

Well, after writing the last edit (so far) on my profile, I need to stop clicking "review".

Solutions for the absence of review queues:

- First Posts. We don't need this review queue.

- Late Answers. Why would we *ever* need this?

- Low-Quality Posts. Nope, it's pretty stupid that one 15 rep user flags something and other users suddenly get the power of a 10000 rep user as longk as that post is concerned.

So that leaves us with suggested editing, close votes, and reopen votes.

Have a thread on meta for each close and reopen votes, where a 3k (number is to be decided) user nominates a post for closure/reopening and other 3k+ users get to comment on it. E.g.

Close [this](...) question as ...

Comment: 1. Yes because...! 2. No becuase ...! 3. Yes because...! 4. Yes because...!

If Close Votes minus Leave Open votes Is at least 2, then an administrator/moderator is forced to close the quesiton. Close votes include nomination.

Same with reopening.

Alternatively, lowly < 3k uusers can "flag" questions by putting them there and you can have people commenting on that.

We'll need to have custom text when a user flags a post saying "Would you want this post to be closed/reoepened? Please nominate it here: ..."

- Suggesting edits.

This is more complicated. I have proposed a solution by making this "thread" on the Psi Epsilon Wikia.

Please add any other review queues we may need by replying to this or directly on the page on the Psi Epsilon Wikia.

By the way, I have replied to you up, because your comment was' not "active".

Now, PhysSEs has a tag for "understanding".

and another for "boiling".

and one for "soft".

And yet another one for "mattter".

and one for "absorption".

and.... one for "identical particles".

and "thought experiment".

I never knew I'd need to write a comment saying:

This question appears to be off-topic because it is about gambling.

LOL :-)

Fighting all the stupid tags created by people who dont know what they are doing, would be a Sysiphus task: while you delete one, they invent 3 new ones ...

On MO, introducing new tags is discussed and approved on meta, instead of left to new users and dilettants who randomly type terms in the tag text field

On Area51, a strongly SE aligned user noted that MO does some things different, such that I had to clearly tell him that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this :-)

Such rascals should not dare to even think about negatively interfering with MathOverflow ...!

Some great news, I used Data.SE to find the number of interesting questions on PSE, and it's just 1216, so that's not a big deal of questions to import.

Also, note that "1216" has a lot of double-counting, so it's even lesser.

I unfortunately lost the query I made, so I'll make it again and link to it.

EDIT:

I was somewhat suspicious of the "1216" number, and my suspicion turned out to be right.

It counts 12005 questions, see <a href="http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/147381/find-all-questions-with-at-least-1-of-a-list-of-tags>here</a>.

But don't worry; a lot of them are double counts. I don't know how one may eliminate those.

Ok, I just found an existing query:

http://data.stackexchange.com/physics/query/61442/average-tag-count-per-question

The average number of tags per question is almost 2.771, which means that we'll have probably arround 4331 questions to handle, which goes way above my already-very-high estimate of 3000.

So why was I calculating this again?

Ah, yes, so we *cannot* hand - pick, or hand - attribute these questions.

If they would behave more reasonable on (Physics) SE, all the good and nice questions could just live there and we would not need to worry about them...

There would not be interesting high-level technical questions wrongly tagged with homework that are endangered to get deleted for example

http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/transcript/message/1606985#1606985

If the deletism on Physics SE gets worse, we need even more than one Physics SE data dump to save good questions (and answers to reference requests)

I am sure we will find a way to save the good questions ... somehow ;-)

BTW in my opinion it is best to simply not discuss theoretical physics issues with Sklivvz and just ignore him:

http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/12104583#12104583

He has not enough knowledge about these things, therefore blindly believes what is written in stupid wrong and misleading popular articles, and just parrots what he has heard (mostly from bad popular sources ...).

I did not look into all of his posts, but his getting highly upvotted for simply finding the right paragraph in wikipedia is simply ridiculous

http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/83310

There are way too many people with > 3000 rep how have gained their points by such and similar methods but dont have a good knowledge about the topics they are posting of their own :-/

However, the lack or knowledge and understanding does unfortunately not prevent Sklivvz from writing about things he knows not much in a very impressive and authoritative tone :-/. Because of his authoritative language, his high rep, and his higher order diamond, the tons of non-physicists now hanging around on Physics SE take him and his wrong claims more serious than what real physicists (such as Urs Schreiber for example), good TP students, or you and me would say ...

These are the bad outcomes of the fact that the site not governed and moderated exclusively by established physicists or at least good serious students ...

Yup, good point regarding Slikwvz's answer to the antimatter question. I reversed my upvote, too .

I agree that the upvotes on his posts are simply due to his diamond crown.

For what it's worth, Ron's answer on ST was good and detail, and in substantial agreement with Larian's. It basically said that there are a few weak predictions that don't really convince anyone, a few strong ones at yet unreachable energies. He concluded with the statement that "we need to figure out the microscopic geometry" before making more convincing predictions. So -- not so different. The problem is that it was totally unreferenced: keep in mind that Skeptics is not about providing expertise in a plethora of different subjects, but it's about examining (typically peer-reviewed) material. Ron was providing his expertise, not examining any material. It was a great answer for Physics.SE but totally off-mark for Skeptics.SE.

Dimension10 (Abhimanyu PS) since tpg2114 can close vote you can pretty much forget about theoretical physics on Physics SE (he closevotes some questions simply because they contain LaTex), and others who have no clue about such topics, I dont have to name them, cheerfully jump in to take part in the funny game called shouting down theoretical questions ... :-/

http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/86204

Maybe we should start a list of wrongly closed questions too, to make them alive on the new site again (I hope that imported closed questions can be reopend in Q2A) ...

Aah, and finally Manishearth explicitely explains that Physics SE should be useful to people who randomly google around in the internet but are not memebers of the community and NOT to the physicists on the site who actually do the contributions and are trying to help each other learn and enjoy Physics:

http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/a/5174

Exactly THIS SE point of view is orthogonal to maintaining a high-level site for experts and good students.

And I guess SE will never learn that in order to build up useful information on a site for the random googlers to find, they should care about the needs of the community who writes the contribution at least equaly strong and put a bit more effort into retaining good long-term users and experts instead of alienating or even banning them ...

Exactly THIS is why we need a new site. So I am thankful to Manishearth for finally spelling out things so explicitely, such that I now have a good link to say in my introductory blog post why building up a higher-level academic site inside the SE network will never work ...

MO works only because they have their special agreement with SE ...

http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/833729#833729

...
Turned out to be true.

By the way, I remember I had once used MaThJaX to write an entire PhysSEs question using \mathsf. This one: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/74172/is-the-conjecture-about-e11-and-m-theory-wests-conjecture-generally-accep

But I decided to use ordinary MarkDown within 5 minutes, so the MaThJaX version is not in the revision history.

This is for @Manishearth who replied to me in our chatroom

http://chat.meta.stackoverflow.com/transcript/message/1620813#1620813

I know that the meta answer just contains the official SE point of view and that you dont interprete it in the worst way. But about people on MSO for example, who mention it occasionally in different disccussions, I am less sure ...
I expect that the majority of the crowed who uses google to find stuff consists of hords of people who make silly comments on Youtube and just wants to be entertained. People seriously interested in things such as Physics, as your friend for example, are certainly a minority. To me it is unclear which part of the people who use google SE wants to address, how much they really care about reaching serious people interested in high- up to research-level stuff for example, or if it is enough (or largely more important) for them to reach a very broad and therefore less knowledgeable crowd? TP at a technical level will never be interesting to the second majority part of people ...

Saying that people drive away TP from Physics SE on purpose is certainly an overstatement and not true. But I got the impression that people dont care if certain policies and actions to exactly this as a side effect ...

In particular on Physics SE, it always annoyed me that people feel entitled to judge questions in the higher order review queues about topics they are not knowledgeable at an at least slightly technical level. I too often saw it happen that higher-level questions got closevoted by 2-3 people (always the same) of whom I know from long observations that they are not knowledgeable about the topic to judge the merits of such questions, 2-3 people who I suspect to be in the know about the topic say leave open, and then a moderator jumps in and the question gets closed anyway. Similar things happen in the reopen queue with the converse signs (people in the know want to reopen, but people not knowledgeable about the topic opose it etc).

I explicitely saw experts stating that such things are annoying, and on MO indeed, most people refrain from judging questions in the higher order review queues, if they feel not knowledgeable enough about the topic in questions.

This is IMHO the reasonable approach and it is why I absolutely trust people with moderation power on MO for example (I absolutely trusted them on TP.SE too). Even if they decide against some of my questions ... ;-D