From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: research-level only?
Summary: In the opinion of this potential co-moderator, no. 
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:06:43 GMT

In article <COLUMBUS.93Jan8153122@strident.think.com> columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss) writes:
>
>Do the proposed moderators for sci.physics.research regard research-level
>questions only as appropriate, or is any "real physics" suitable, so long
>as it is not in the FAQ?

I agree with John and Dale: subject to the carrying capacity of the group (I
originally proposed the 20-a-day ideal and think it's sensible), err on the
side of allowing "any 'real physics'."  As for your examples:

>1.  There have been a few posts recently on Huygens' principle.  

Generally fair game, although I would look hard for new content in followups
after the first one.  The fact that a subject is elucidated in a textbook
somewhere does *not* necessarily rule it out of bounds for s.p.r -- although
it may lead to a moderator's note aiming the poster (and other interested
readers) at that textbook and directing followups to e-mail unless they
contain something new and interesting.

>2.  About a year ago, someone posted a paradox involving a collision
>    between an infinitely massive object and an object of finite mass.  

I didn't see those postings, but based on your description probably would
*not* accept them; the word "paradox" strikes a negative note with me
vis-a-vis the speculativeness filter, and when you add the details of this
particular paradox ...

>3.  I asked recently about the QM explanation of ferro-magnetism, and got a
>    couple of very informative posts.

I agree with John; same guidelines as example 1.

>4.  QM at all levels generates a lot of questions.  Some recent examples:

FAQ fodder, if the FAQ is done right.  (BTW, I hope that one of the first
postings to sci.physics.research will be a call from Scott Chase to help make
the FAQ file more comprehensive and user-friendly than it is today; there
seems to be a net-wide trend in this direction that sci.physics could benefit
from.)

>5.  GR also generates a lot of questions.  I'll give one example, from
>    maybe a year ago: does it make any sense to ask whether the universe as
>    a whole is rotating (Mach's principle, Newton's buckets)?

Hmmmm.  This would depend *very* strongly on the details of the postings.

>Should sci.physics.research include such threads?  If its goal is to serve
>the needs of research physicists only, then I guess not.

I agree with John that sci.physics.research should have a more open-minded
goal than that: not to serve the researcher's "needs" as much as to reduce
the noise level to the point that the researcher will contribute.  In general,
professionals who lurk in Usenet groups don't get turned off by being
"pestered" with honest if amateur-based questions; it's the subsequent flamage
and degradation of the signal that causes the loss of interest.  That's what
moderation should avoid, if we do our job right.

-- 
Bill Johnson				| My suggestion for an Official
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| Usenet Motto: "If you have nothing
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| to say, then come on in, this is the
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| place for you, tell us all about it!"
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups