So I asked https://math.stackexchange.com/q/1524356/21820 and don't understand why people have voted to close it as unclear or opinion-based, and down-voted as well. I specifically ask:
I'm looking for explicit experimental confirmation of some physical phenomenon that can be explained using the Lebesgue measure but not say the Jordan measure.
This is a factual question. If anyone has an answer, it would be experimentally verifiable and hence not opinion-based. If no one has an answer, it is also not opinion-based but simply remains an open question.
Also, I don't see how it can be unclear unless one says that "explained using" is unclear, which to me is silly since we have been doing this in science from the beginning. For example motion (on a non-quantum scale) can be explained using Einstein's theory of relativity but not Newtonian mechanics, so far at least. Similarly, either there is a physical phenomenon that is explained by some theorem that requires using the Lebesgue integral in its proof, or there isn't, say because all sets that arise in modelling physical phenomena turn out to be Jordan measurable.
So what specifically is wrong with it? So far no one has commented on why they thought there is a problem with my question.
Edit: So now based on some of the feedback on the question as well as here, I've given my own definition of "physical interpretation", based on which the question should be more objective. (Though I still welcome answers that might disagree with my definition, so long as they provide their own and explain why their concept of physical interpretation is more meaningful than mine.) Is it reasonable now?
Edit 2: It seems that some people on Math SE detest such questions, as they have voted to delete it. Yet I don't see why the question is bad at all, not to say that it should be deleted. Even this meta question has more down-votes than up-votes, although it's not a stupid question. If this is the environment here on Math SE, that does not welcome any critical inquiry into questions about the choice of mathematical frameworks, then I'd rather leave.
Edit 3: Here are example that seem to provide evidence that the reasons given against my question are not consistently applied to questions on Math SE:
- What is the simplest mathematical concept that does not map to a physical phenomenon?
- What is a particle mathematically?
- Does every major genre of mathematics have applications?
- What are some examples of mathematics that had unintended useful applications much later?
So any answer to my meta-question should explain why my question is invalid despite being as clear and precise as I could make it, which is in stark contrast to the incredible vagueness of the above questions.