• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New features!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

123 submissions , 104 unreviewed
3,600 questions , 1,219 unanswered
4,605 answers , 19,558 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
424 active unimported users
More ...

How about a Polymath-like Project for Theoretical Physics?

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

the polymath project is a web-based collaboration of freely contributing scientists in mathematics. Initially starting in 2009 by Fields-Medallist Timothy Gowers, Terence Tao joined efforts later on along with many other contributors leading to a series of papers and ongoing research.

On Physics.SE, there were a number of questions on the main site² and on meta.³° However, it seemed to me that there was not much resonance to be seen. I think the main reason for this is that such a project would need at least one (high profile) senior professional as it was mentioned by Approximist but such individuals were not really attracted by Physics.SE.

However, I think the situation is completely different on the new site. It is clear that Theoretical Physics does not suffer from a lack of quality questions of high claim and that we have gathered a huge amount of knowledge here. Just looking at the five users with the highest reputation (atm), we find four professors (Joe Fitzsimon, Luboš Motl, José Figueroa-O'Farrill & Moshe) as well as one postdoc (Urs Schreiber).

So, one might ask:

Why shouldn't we take this opportunity and use some of the questions on the site as seed for collaborative research just in the sense of the polymath project?


This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Oct 10, 2011 in SE.TP.discussion by Robert Filter (35 points) [ no revision ]
The biggest reason Polymath has been successful is, IMO, excellent choice of problems. The problems they've worked on required rather broad knowledge, but were considered tractable by experts. I'd assume the biggest stumbling block for physics would be finding such problems. Physics problems are often either more specialized or less tractable, but I'd bet this isn't a fatal flaw.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I'm not actually a postdoc. My appointment is equivalent to assistant professor.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@LoganMaingi: That might be true and indeed it is true for all kinds of science - the choice of questions is important. Maybe we should see this point as some kind of challenge :) Greets

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@JoeFitzsimons: Ok, sorry, I was only doing a very quick survey, will change it in a minute. Greets

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

2 Answers

+ 11 like - 0 dislike

I don't think this is a bad idea, but I do think the time is not right yet. Of our current open questions very few look like the question is really open in an interesting sense. I'm not even convinced the unanswered questions are necessarily a good source for such questions.

This is actually something we have been thinking of doing on CSTheory, now that we have a community blog through which we can coordinate efforts. However, finding suitable questions seems non-trivial, as you need a few things: a question which might actually be tractable, an approach which seems worthwhile, a way of dividing the problem into bite-sized chunks, etc. It seems like we might have a few suitable questions from the unanswered section of cstheory, but by now there are well over 300 questions there.

In a sense a polymath project is only interesting if you are proving something new and interesting, where the end goal is a paper, but not so much when you are trying to figure out what was meant by the question, or know the answer is already known, or when the question is simply not interesting.

With that in mind, I would suggest we park the idea until the site has grown some more. I do like the idea, but I don't think it is really realistic at our current stage of development.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Oct 11, 2011 by Joe Fitzsimons (3,555 points) [ no revision ]
Thank you for your answer, Joe. Indeed, one will have to find a suitable set of questions which is the main problem as Logan also pointed out. However, I believe that among all the questions that might be interesting there might be some which are best for such a collaboration - something that you wouldn't do in a serious research but where also one person is not enough to handle the tasks. Of course, I agree that this is not something we should start immediately but just keep in mind :) Greets

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I agree that the stars aren't right yet; but it seems to me that we've a good candidate in Ferrie's [question](http://theoreticalphysics.stackexchange.com/q/417/172) about SIC-POVMS.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
+ 2 like - 0 dislike

In our institute we have been wondering, for some time now, how to go a step beyond GalaxyZoo or any other WhateverZoo and we have not reached strong conclusions. But ideally, you can consider two kinds of problems, those where you simply need "divide and conquer", even if the divide is to be done among specialised users, and those where you actually expect some insight coming from the interaction of different minds. Polymath is perhaps the only one in the second kind actually having some success. But we could also be open to problems of the first kind, with roasters of "tasks to be done" that could be volunteered.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Oct 12, 2011 by anonymous [ no revision ]

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights