3
$\begingroup$

My understanding is that physicists use regularization in aspects of quantum field theory. indeed you will find regularization in EVERY book on quantum field theory (which in my understanding IS physics)

Am I not allowed to ask about regularization in physics SE? Why?

If regularization is not an acceptable physics SE question then please let me know and I'll stop trying to learn about it here

$\endgroup$
9
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ You've asked many questions on Meta all asking about nearly the same thing. Please stick to one question! Also, please tone down some of your past questions. It is a site on the computer after all, and while I can understand your frustration, there's no need to throw around insults. Please understand I'm not trying to insult you or anything, I just want to make sure you get an answer. People will be more likely to answer if you ask calmly and politely. $\endgroup$
    – auden
    Commented Jul 10, 2016 at 16:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @heather thanks for your kind help. Im not aware of insulting anyone and i felt my question, while connect, are distinct. There seem to be a handful of users targetting my posts and deleting and moving things claiming that regularization is not a physics topic or that it's an unclear topic. Im trying to find out if we are allowed to ask questions about regularization Anyways, thanks :p $\endgroup$
    – user122066
    Commented Jul 10, 2016 at 16:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ yeah, no problem. I guess I'm just suggesting to think before you post, and combine related questions. $\endgroup$
    – auden
    Commented Jul 10, 2016 at 16:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks @heather, well said. I'd add that I think this particular meta question is a very good one. $\endgroup$
    – David Z
    Commented Jul 10, 2016 at 16:24
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidZ, definitely a good one. $\endgroup$
    – auden
    Commented Jul 10, 2016 at 16:25
  • $\begingroup$ The math part of the question is related to meta.physics.stackexchange.com/q/5713/2451 $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic Mod
    Commented Jul 10, 2016 at 16:36
  • $\begingroup$ @Qmechanic i dont mean pure math...just regularization like one would encounter in physics $\endgroup$
    – user122066
    Commented Jul 10, 2016 at 16:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just like how when physicists talk about quantum mechanics they usually mention vectors or hilbert spaces. Or when people talk about E&M they might mention gauge invariance. These are math things but math seems to be the language of physics. It's probably not possible to learn physics without using mathematics $\endgroup$
    – user122066
    Commented Jul 10, 2016 at 16:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps a SE called "mathematical physics" would mke everyone happy. That way physics SE could be only conceptual $\endgroup$
    – user122066
    Commented Jul 10, 2016 at 16:46

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

The subject of is on-topic if adequately put in a physics context. For some well-received examples of this, see e.g.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ So if i specifically say "im a physicist and therefor interested in regularization in QFT" then it becomes on topic? I figured a priori regularization is on topic because regularization is a crucial aspect of QFT and it was being asked in a physics SE $\endgroup$
    – user122066
    Commented Jul 10, 2016 at 17:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I.e. ive always understood mathematical physics as being part of physics because usually physicists are not mathematicians $\endgroup$
    – user122066
    Commented Jul 10, 2016 at 17:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user122066 I think the point of these questions is just that tone/context can make a question more or less well-received. It's possible your questions were closed because people didn't understand how they related to physics. That's frustrating, but it's also your responsibility to write well-posed, focused questions. $\endgroup$
    – Jahan Claes
    Commented Jul 11, 2016 at 15:47
  • $\begingroup$ @user122066 I'll also add that your infinite sum question in particular seemed to be answerable without any physics knowledge whatsoever, and thus BELONGED in the math stackexchange. It's not an insult to be moved to math if someone thinks you'll get better answers there. $\endgroup$
    – Jahan Claes
    Commented Jul 11, 2016 at 15:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .