User talk:Chris Howard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please feel free to leave me a message. (I don´t look in regularly, but will look at this page whenever I visit wikipedia) --Chris Howard 15:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

light tube/pipe disambig[edit]

After looking at the two articles that you linked, I think a disambig page would be advisable. They seem to be similar technologies that often use overlapping names, but they are still different. I would use light pipe as the disambig page and list Sulfur_lamp#Light_pipes as the first possibility and then light tube as the second possibility. Also, don't forget to add {{disambig}} to the botton of the light pipe page. =) I hope that helps. Have a great day and happy editing! ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer to my question. I´ve set up Light pipe as suggested, it looks OK to me. I´ll discuss improvements or a possible redesign below in the next section. Thanks for your quick reaction, and I wish you a great day, too! --Chris Howard 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
After further heavy work on light tube so it now includes not only light transport but also light distribution, the redirect is no longer needed (especially, as the "3M light pipe" is a product name for a light pipe as discussed in the light pipe redirect). It looks much better and coherent to me now, given that in most cases the same type of object (an optical fiber, and also a prism light guide) can be used for both aims. Thanks for your help and encouragement :-) --Chris Howard 11:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Light pipes[edit]

Good work on heliostats and light tubes. I wanted to check in with you about creating an article for light pipes (the 3M kind). While 3M developed it for the sulfur lamp, they are still marketing the technology for use with other kinds of lamps, so I don't want to tie light pipes to sulfur lamps only. I can create an article for it by copying the basic description from the sulfur lamp article, but I'm not sure what to name it. Any suggestions? Also, there are solid-core light pipes as well--I guess it's something like thick optical fibre. Are the names for these things standardized? SDC 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

When considering what to name it, three characteristics of the 3M kind of pipe come to my mind:
At this point, I have now slightly generalized the Light tube page (synonymously Light pipe) to light transport and also to distribution, and maybe Prism light guide could become the title of an article on the 3M technology and related issues (for "prism light guide", see also search results http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22prism+light+guide%22&btnG=Google+Search ), with a redirect from "Prismatic light guide" (the search http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22prismatic+light+guide%22&btnG=Search gives some but fewer results). As prism light guides are more general than the 3M technology, a mere "copy and paste" from the sulfur lamp article wouldn´t be quite enough. Also, I´ve briefly mentioned prism light guides on the light pipe page, see Light_tube#Prism light guide.
Fiber optic light pipes (see Light_tube#Optical fiber) are mentioned on the light tube page; I´not sure about solid-core light pipes being thick optical fibers.
Looking forward to your input on sulfur lamps, prism light guides or elsewhere... --Chris Howard 19:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
In it simplest form a light tube is simply a rod made of high quality glass, with polished ends. I was a bit surprised to see that no link was made to the fiberscope or optical fiber; it are variations of the same theme. JdH 15:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That would indeed be surprising. The light tube article does have a link to optical fiber as it is indeed one of the types of light tubes (see Light_tube#Optical fiber). Sulfur lamp also has a link to optical fiber as a separate section, see Sulfur_lamp#Optical_fibers. Its "Light pipes" section actually discusses not light pipes in general, but more specifically prism light guides such as the 3M light pipe (product name), so it could benefit from a renaming and reworking.
After further thought, I agree that a link to fiberscope, although is meant for imaging purposes (industrial endoscopy, see Optical_fiber#Other_uses_of_optical_fibers), is useful; I´m adding it to the light tube article. Thanks for pointing it out. --Chris Howard 07:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories´syntax[edit]

Hi, I noticed (and agree) you added "Solar design" to Solar chimney (perhaps after noticing the category on the Light tube page?). I don´t know the Wiki-synax of two parameters in the category-specification, which you used in your last edit: could you tell me what the addition of "|Solar chimney" has? I´d appreciate to learn, --Chris Howard 12:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The field after the vertical bar (known as a pipe) is used as a sort key. In this case I included it out of habit :-), but you could use it to organize the list; e.g. you could type [[Category:Solar design|ventilation]] to make it show up under "ventilation" instead. JdH 13:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

L-P SPAMs[edit]

It wasn't SPAM so much as the oft-cited "WWIN", specifically "not a catalog of external links" (Or whatever it's called), as well as the noxious tendency of a random list of companies to attract more of them, eventually leading to a section that has to be severely hacked down. If there's a definate reason for keeping them (Such as the comment I notice for the 1st one (The original mfgr.)) then I wont mind. In all honesty, that's far form the worst I've seen, but I hit up on that articel after dealing with some much worse SPAMs, so I was probably in a less lenient feel and so took them all out. 68.39.174.238 00:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW...[edit]

This it's possible to cut down on the italicized text block? Maybe create a disambiguation page somewhere? 68.39.174.238 00:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I´ve made light tube (disambiguation), thanks for the hint. --Chris Howard 10:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Still thinking about how/whether to shorten/comment/explain the manufacturors (not: vendors, that would indeed be far too long). --Chris Howard 10:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice work with the new page. I've tried to make the text block at the top smaller slightly. Anyway, was there a specific standard you used when you added various mfgrs. to the list? If it was something that could be codified, then you could explain the list that way and I think that would solve any complaints that could be brought against it (EG. "Manufacturers with over X amount of sales in the last year" where "X" was high enough to include only the most notable in the industry). A suggestion. 68.39.174.238 17:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment and for your making it smaller yet. About the manufacturors: I really listed all I could find (the biggest difficulty was to distinguish manufacturors from mere vendors). I looked in English, German, French, and Dutch language sites, and these U.S. and German manufacturors seem to be the only ones. I may have overlooked some, of course. (I'm not sure I would go as far as to say: "The following manufacturors are the only manufacturors so far", because there's no point in running the risk of a factual error.)--Chris Howard 22:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
If they are manufacturers and there genuinely are that few then I have no problem with that. I was afraid it was a truly indiscriminate list (The way a list of vendors would be). I'd just note made a HTML comment along the lines of "Only well established and in-buissiness manufacturers should be included here" and maybe check every now and then to ensure some SPAMmer hasn't invaded the list. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 02:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
In the meantime, all corporate links have indiscriminately been deleted by another user; I´ve decided to leave it at that, as I´ve recently seen other articles being indeed spammed, and even an edit-war resulting, and I would not want that to happen with this one. So, a visitor on the page will not learn about the manufacturers, but that´s not a real problem. --Chris Howard 18:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor[edit]

Good job on the rewording and other edits on this article. This was something I planned on doing myself, but you beat me to it. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks for adding back the "candidate for deletion" indicator. Hadn't meant to take that away.
Actually I had inputted most all of the quotes to the article in the start (mid-October to mid-November 2008), saving it from its state of candidate-for-deletion at that time, and I had not appreciated the changes in formatting etc that the article had undergone since. So now was just the right time to put it right again...
Thanks for your friendly message. (And I´m sure glad Erwin85Bot notigied me...! - but it´s good to know you´d have been there in any case.) Cheers! --Chris Howard (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

De Broglie Bohm[edit]

Thanks for the new papers you've cited. The first paper, though, strikes as more relevant to the entire article (after all there is no suggestion that Saunders and Brown have failed to understand the theory in the way described). I suggest you mention it somewhere else in the article. Not immediately sure where, though. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, putting it there where it was would relate it, loosely, to the question of whether particles in the Bohm picture could be seen as superfluous. Yet, giving it some thought, this statement fits quite seamlessly into the section "Hidden variable", giving much more insight at the right point in the article. Thanks for your constructive suggestion. --Chris Howard (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting that Einstein had proposed a similar model. That might be worth mentioning somewhere as well. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your addition to the "Hidden variable" section, I have the same problem as earlier; the statement by Holland seems to be referring to the quantum potential, which is a core but elementary part of dBB. He's not saying anything relevant to the subject of back-reaction or the alleged unobservability of the particle(s). -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I certainly also understand it as referring to the quantum potential (or active information), see also Basil Hiley#Quantum potential and active information in addition to the current redirect of "quantum potential" to the deBB article. The statement by Holland is that trajectories are "correlated not because the particles exert a direct force on one another [...] but because all are acted upon by an entity – mathematically described by the wavefunction or functions of it – that lies beyond them". It is precisely the quantum potential, as well as the wavefunction itself, which are more "hidden" in the sense of not-drectly-observable than the particle properties. This joins with "Conversely" added now): "Conversely, the particles [...] are anything but `hidden´ variables". This section deals precisely with what is called hidden, and why. I have clarified it slightly further now by making explicit reference to the quantum potential in the last sentence of that paragraph [1]. Does that address your concern to satisfaction, or would you want to word the text or place the text differently?
Also, yes maybe Einstein's withdrawn manuscript, referenced by Cushing, could be mentioned. Will give it some thought. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Concerning the topic of no back-reaction of particles on the quantum field in deBB, I found here a concise statement by Bohm and Hiley: "the Schrodinger equation for the quantum field does not have sources, nor does it have any other way by which the field could be directly affected by the condition of the particles [...] the quantum theory can be understood completely in terms of the assumption that the quantum field has no sources or other forms of dependence on the particles" (Bohm and Hiley, The undivided universe: an ontological interpretation of quantum theory, p. 24) --Chris Howard (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Nice quote by Bohm and Hiley. Yes, they seem to be referring to the lack of back reaction. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 06:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I have now made a new article quantum potential, as concise as possible, as substitute to the earlier redirect to deBB (and using text from my own edits to the "Basil Hiley" article). I have linked to it from the deBB article, and have moved Holland's statement which was under discussion here, as well as a mention of Einstein's related proposal, to the history section of the deBB article. --Chris Howard (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
All sound and look like good moves. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Quantum discord[edit]

Just found this on NPP! Love it - very well done; so refreshing to be able to pass an article straight through with a big smile on my face :o) Pesky (talkstalk!) 05:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!! --Chris Howard (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Storms[edit]

I saw this George_H._Miley. I thought maybe you would like to write up something for Edmund Storms just like it.

[1][2], retired from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, author of several books on CF/LENR [3][4]"The science of low energy nuclear reaction (World scientific, 2007)"


84.107.147.121 (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi IP-84.107.147.121, Storms appears to be an independent writer / researcher, retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory, I found one book so far, published by World Scientific Publishing in 2007. I am doubtful he would meet Wikipedia's notability criteria - it is far easier for permanent University faculty, which are the most persons about I write bio's. But I'd be interested to be convinced otherwise. (Do make sure to spell out your references in that case, so that they're retrievable; the links are so far missing in your previous edit.) Cheers --Chris Howard (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, I have looked up your reference indications now (finding them back in the article "Cold fusion") and added some more:
Nonetheless, I am not sure this material yields sufficient basis for an article satisfying Wikipedia:Notability. His special mention by Wired.com in Netcom may be a pin-pointed but not a very strong indicator. I would prefer to leave it at this, already to avoid a painful Wikipedia deletion discussion. --Chris Howard (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
hi,
Sorry about the links. Kinda silly I didn't notice that :/
I know of the controversy around cold fusion but you do have to wonder, should we perhaps attempt to cover scientific cold fusion or should we limit the encyclopedia to mainstream media cold fusion. I think the later would be an awful idea. We already have 1000 editors for the media fusion. The "it is wrong you musn't do it" editors seem sufficiently occupied. I think we can sneak in an article while they look the other way. hehehe
I've seen tons of references to his book on web pages which doesn't mean much to the wiki but this wired quote seems to indicate he is important.
  • wired - Nov 1998[2] Michael McKubre and Edmund Storms are two leaders of a discreet league of scientists who are risking their careers - and occasionally their lives - to prove the viability of cold, or low-temperature, fusion.
A quick search also gave me this:
  • Chicago Tribune - Jun 25, 1989 [3] "Seeking cold fusion, researchers find its byproduct_tritium"
  • Newsweek - Jul 19, 1993 [4] "'Cold Fusion': Still Going"
Perhaps you can make a page in your userspace and dump the references there for future generations to find :-)
84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice Youtube link on the "it is wrong" citation. Concerning Wikipedia, I will not put it online without a clear-cut case for notability, and reliable info on his one or several books, 32 or 34 years work, initial education, etc - else it's not much of a bio. With the meager information there is, folks can be quick enough to google such tidbits of information if they need. No compelling case for "Why" to write an article at this point. --Chris Howard (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Journal of New Energy[edit]

In discussions with User:AnnaBennett over what I considered to be an inappropriate link to a pdf file of a document apparently from the 'Journal of New Energy' (see User_talk:AnnaBennett#Journal_of_New_Energy), it was pointed out that the same article was also cited in the George H. Miley article - and it appears that this link was added by you. As I see it, there are two possible problems with the link. Firstly, the pdf link appears not to be to the 'Journal' itself, and as such may well be a copyright violation, and secondly, if the 'Journal' is the same one referred to here [5], it is clearly not a WP:RS, and citing it in the manner in which it is used seems rather questionable. I'd be interested to see what comments you have on this matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Andy, after giving it some further thought and researching the topic further, I have now substituted the link to that publication with an indication of the publication in "Infinite Energy" (providing a link to that magazine's back issues, Issue 9/1996). --Chris Howard (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not sure that "Infinite Energy" is much of a source for anything of substance,, but I suppose it'll do for a statement that the Miley and Patterson paper was published there. 00:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes. In any case the earlier-cited article and other articles in the 'J. New Energy' article are cited elsewhere, too, for example in the 2011 work by S. Krivit et al., published by John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-0470894392 - which contains also similar work by Miley and others, on LENR, transmutations in thin-film reactions, etc., in the chapter by S. Krivit and in the chapter co-authored by G. Miley. --Chris Howard (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that Krivet's 'Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia' is going to be WP:RS for matters of scientific fact, either, so we are rather back where we started if the source is being cited for anything of substance. Stiil, at least we've solved the possible copyvio problem, and avoided linking to the padrak.com website - it seems to contain some bizarre stuff... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

AFD/PROD notifications[edit]

Hi there Chris. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links on the page), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swalling@wikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, fine, I have given feedback on that page, --Chris Howard (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Spacetime algebra[edit]

Great to see the work you've been doing on Spacetime algebra. I've left a note on the talk page regarding the way that the word "spinor" is used by much of the GA crowd. This was something that led me into considerable confusion, as I realised only slowly that this is different (or, at least, I do think it is different) to how the word has been conventionally used in physics. So I'd be really grateful if you could expand on this.

PS. Do you have the book by Lounesto? It seems to me that this gives a good development and presentation by somebody who isn't Hestenes, so adding page-cites in the article to his discussion might be of considerable benefit. Jheald (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noting. Yes, I have the book, and concerning the various ways of seeing "spinor" I have expanded the "History" section with references from the book.
I have also read your comments on the article's Talk page; I have checked to see if I find secondary sources that might put Dorst's way of presenting spinors explicitly in context with spinor spaces as minimal left ideal. Haven't found much; of interest might be [6], [7], [8] (within those documents, the relevant places can be found via fulltext search for "spinor"). --Chris Howard (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I have now found a much more conclusive reference. Chris J. L. Doran, Anthony N. Lasenby: Geometric algebra for physicists, Cambridge University Press, 2003, ISBN 0-521-48022-1, p. 268–271 It discusses the spinor when seen in analogy to a rotor, and several examples of a “one-to-one map between conventional quantum mechanics and the multivector equivalent” – the one-to-one map is given for spin-up and spin-down states, for Pauli operators, and for the unit imaginary of quantum theory. --Chris Howard (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyediting Katherine Sopka[edit]

Thanks for the inquiry, I tagged it because of some syntax and tone mistakes in the body and lead of the article. I wanted to give the guild of copy editors a chance to improve the article, and make it sparkle. But if you are up to the task you can do some copy editing and remove it.Wrathofjames (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it sparkles more now ;-) --Chris Howard (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Confused about Kevin J. Sharpe[edit]

I came across the redirect page Kevin J. Sharpe while I was doing New Pages Patrol. I am trying to understand what your intention was with this page. Are you intending to create a page eventually for the mathematician, and want this page Kevin J. Sharpe to be the site of the eventual article? Or did you intend this page to redirect to an article named Kevin Joseph Smith which you will write later? (It seems odd to create a redirect page before creating the article). It looks like you were trying to clear up some earlier confusion with the historian, who I gather did NOT go by the name Kevin J. Sharpe. You had Kevin J. Sharpe pointing toward a disambiguation page, Kevin Sharpe, but there is no need for a disambiguation page when there are only two possible articles; instead the two articles should be clarified with a WP:HATNOTE at the top of each article. For right now I have changed Kevin Sharpe from a disambiguation page into a redirect to Kevin Sharpe (historian) since that is the only existing, relevant article. I was going to propose deletion of the page Kevin J. Sharpe as there is no article for it to point to. However, I wanted to check with you first. Are planning to 1) expand this page into an actual article in the near future, under the name Kevin J. Sharpe? If so the page could be retained for right now as a WP:STUB if you put in a sentence or two, or you could ask an administrator to WP:USERFY it to you, so that you can work on it at your leisure without anybody breathing down your neck about it. Or are you planning to 2) write an article, but to call it Kevin Joseph Smith? If so it seems odd to create the redirect page first. If you are 3) NOT planning to write an article about the mathematician any time soon, then let's just delete Kevin J. Sharpe. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A bit of patience only - just a few hours ago I cleared out the Kevin Sharpe vs. Kevin J. Sharpe by moving the page, and am actually just right now writing the article on Kevin J. Sharpe, which would thus save the administrators the trouble of deleting the current redirect page. Should be finished within an hour or so. (And no, not on Kevin J. Smith.) --Chris Howard (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like to chime in and say that you are doing things in a thoroughly confusing manner, the historian is the only Kevin Sharpe to have an article on WP, so does not need the (historian) in the page title, and as Melanie says a hat note along the lines of "if you are looking for the mathematician Kevin J. Sharpe" at the top of the article is sufficient. And you are the person who created the article and gave it the wrong title in the first place. Please try and be more careful in the future as I believe myself and Melanie have just spent a good while trying to figure out what was going on. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. When you have the article about Kevin J. Sharpe finished do you intend to paste it into the existing article? That will solve the redirect problem. Then each of the articles - the mathematician and the historian - should have a hatnote added at the top of the page. Example: {{About|the mathematician Kevin Joseph Sharpe|the historian|Kevin Sharpe}} will produce a notice like this:
This page is about the mathematician Kevin Joseph Sharpe. For the historian, see Kevin Sharpe.
--MelanieN (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Article created. Was follow-up of the work of the IP User:77.96.210.176 who cleared up the confusion among the historian and the mathematician-theologian on 08 April 2012 as visible from the IP's edit comments. Done. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

Hi - I think its only fair:

The Citation Barnstar The Citation Barnstar
For sorting out the tedious assembly of citations at David Hestenes.F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 15:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, keep up the hard work (yet rest also!). =)

I'd like to second this... and thanks also for helping to improve the NPOV in the same article. Rschwieb (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi the two of you, I have been very pleased by your barnstar to me back in April this year. Yesterday however, I edited my talk page to remove this barnstar, after there was evidence provided for "technical indistinguishability" of F=q(E+v^B) with a highly abusive editor [9]. Yet in line with these doubts by others: [10], and especially [11], and [12], and in lack of behavioural evidence of the two editors being identical, I now revert my last edit (thus re-inserting the barnstar here), in the sincere hope that it was a false positive due to IP overlaps for ex. users sharing the same IP access points at university. In any case thanks Rschwieb for the feedback, and in dubio pro reo to F=q(E+v^B) ...and hoping that time will provide evidence... --Chris Howard (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Kevin J. Sharpe[edit]

This article starts giving biographical details such as what year he finished his Ph.D. before attempting to make clear what he is noted for. That is wrong. Could you re-organize this? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right. I have now added this into the lead, and thanks for pointing it out. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Fay Dowker[edit]

Hi Chris,

Hope you're well. I am writing to you with regards to the editing you did on Professor Fay Dowker's page.

I am a student of hers, and it was upon her approval that I edited her page before. She does not approve of your version and would like to request you to please stop doing that. I don't know who told you she won the Tyson Medal in 1978 - she wasn't even a teenager at the time.

Kind regards. Worldline Convergence (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Hope you're well, too. Thank you for providing an explanation of your revert, and please extend Professor Dowker my regards. You are right that the year of the Tyson prize contained a typo, it was 1987 not 1978.
Concerning the other content of the edit to which you have objected, especially the citation in Lee Smolin's book that I had inserted was intended to contribute - to some extent at least - to "notability" in Wikipedia terms. Of course it can be argued that this spedcific information is not absolutely essential either and does not establish notability as such, and therefore in as far as there is any indication that Professor Dowker might object to it being mentioned, I have no problem in leaving it out.
But the notability really is under dispute, see the header of the article, and it would therefore be helpful if you could provide other material which would underline Wikipedia "notability".
Your revert also deleted a "citation needed" flag attached to the sentence concening Dowker's interests as a student, yet there is so far no citation for that sentence. Wikipedia is intended to contain only content that is verifiable in terms of reliable sources (WP:RS), especially in articles on living persons. The sentence on her interests as student is currently unsourced, and thus would need to be removed from the article. So if you are well enough acquainted to have access to published references about Dowker's life, it could be helpful if you would provide, if possible, a reference for that sentence; otherwise could you re-insert the "citation needed" flag or, better yet, please remove that one sentence?
In any case the main issue I see with the article at the moment is the question of Wikipedia notability, and I sincerely wish you good luck with your further work on the article. Kind regards from my side too, --Chris Howard (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for responding to Maschen. It's too bad that he did not leave an e-mail address. He needs validation of what he does right. Who doesn't? Some individuals look for anybody they think they can get over on, and I've seen a lot of that in the last several years, but never anything as nasty as the Hobgoblin. P0M (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If Maschen happens to look at his page, our messages may help him reflect about his experiences with bit of detachment, relativize it all, and get over it. So I hope, at least. --Chris Howard (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! - You two have succeeded. Maschen (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

some GA articles[edit]

Hi Chris. I noticed you have made some recent contributions related to geometric algebra in physics. You may be interested in editing gauge theory gravity or Riemann–Silberstein vector if you are familiar with the topics. Teply (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent Further reading[edit]

I understand this is not a bulletin board, but I should hope you appreciate that sec VII of the further reading source you adduced in an article is hardly sound or mainstream. Expanding nonlocal operations on δ-function distributions by power expansions has long been understood to be problematic, and should not be done unless one is confident of what one is doing, which the author does not. These problems have been addressed and resolved in the mainstream literature. Consider a Gausian coherent state for the oscillator removed from the phase-plane origin by a radius squared (energy) of, say, a billion ħ. All sensible, well-meaning, correct expressions will yield visibly classical behavior all the while using proper *-product evolution. Section VII of that reference invites people to do an unsound expansion, instead, and then wrings its hands for getting meaningless results, when, in reality, QM works fine, and it looks classical for high-action systems, as any mechanical engineer designing the planes you fly would tell one. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cuzkatzimhut, no problem on contacting me about this of course. Does your comment refer to the paper by Case which I added as "Further reading" to the page on the Wigner–Weyl transform? If yes, then what would be strange is that your criticism has not been voiced elsewhere. I have checked the articles citing this paper and could so far not find such critique. Furthermore, it's published in the American Journal of Physics, and it would seem normal that their review process would have spotted such an issue and held it back from publication if it was "hardly sound" as you say, or would at least have made sure this point was addressed more explicitly. I find sections I-III of Case`s article a remarkably well-readable introduction to the topic of the Wigner function, and section IV an interesting viewpoint on the example. If section VII is really amiss, then of course the article should be taken out of course, we would not want an unsound article to be cited as reference for further reading. But are you aware of a critical discussion of Case's article anywhere in the mainstream, and could you provide a link or reference? (Or are you sctually saying the peer-reviewed Americal Journal of Physics got it entirely wrong on this one? And I do not ask this as just a rhetorical question.) --Chris Howard (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I am saying "AJP" got it entirely wrong on this one, or its referee(s) did. I would not trust everything ever published, just because it has been refereed---volunteer one-shot refereeing is not a guarantee of soundness. Still, I should concur with your positive assessment of that review article, including eqn (38) which I gather you are lauding, all except for section VII. I have not followed any controversy in the literature about the conclusions or implications, or impressions of section VII, and I have seen them before, but I have also seen sounder treatments; they appear unsound to me, and are at variance with lots of things that are known and omitted from that discussion. Note that discussion is of the "I do this and that and that and I end up with contradictory nonsense", not a firm statement of facts or conjectures. The broader issue is a how to one: How does one abstract macroscopic systems out of quantum systems in that formalism, in particular out of systems with large actions S (so ħ/S is small ) which often coincide with systems of huge quantum numbers. This is a very delicate art, involving multiple rescalings and switches of units, and it is well-known that a couple of wrong moves and one breaks one's neck. Recall how each term in the expansion of exp( -x) for huge x appears large, but isn't.
But it can be done right! A Voros pioneered the study in the late 60s. Ref 2 in that article, and ref 6, including its on-line updates, which I understand contain exercises addressing these technical issues, cover much of that territory. Sec VII of the reference in question takes several dangerous steps, and breaks its neck, metaphorically, and then concludes that this is treacherous territory. It could have informed the reader better if it utilized action-balanced units, where both x and p have units of √ ħ, and considered how two interfering gaussians lose their interference in phase space as their distance in space increases indefinitely (oscillations in p increase in frequency to cancel themselves); or how a coherent state (like his Fig2(a)) = ground state displaced to a phase space radius whose square amounts to an energy of, say a trillion ħ , rotating uniformly in phase space, eqn (50) in full accord with the Moyal equation handles the *-product just fine to produce a classical microscopic state, with suitable rescalings of units, etc...
Trying something Case did not have the patience to get to work and condemning the entire formalism by obscuring its proven huge utility (and advantage, indeed, superiority to others!) in understanding the classical limit hardly does a service to the reader. I find it misleading, but if you enjoy the rest of the review, I'd be out of order making faces there! I would mealy-mouth that "however, the section on the classical limit is not as complete and constructive", and does an injustice to that Formulation's subtly consistent beauty. I have the sense a great teaching moment was forfeited. The opportunity, which is crucial in understanding how classical entropy summarizes the classical limit of the quantum von Neumann entropy, has been handled serviceably by other references and books, as I indicated. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision including subtle demarcation looks optimal! Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! By the way I've been thinking that a new section "Classical limit" to the "phase space formulation" article would be a teaching opportunity to not miss. The Wikipedia-article on the "Classical limit" itself is rather brief in its consideration of the phase space formulation. --Chris Howard (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a classical limit stub, of course, but it doesn't do the trick. I am busy at the moment, but I may give it a try in future, unless somebody else were up to it.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

On Koopman von Neumann–wavefunction[edit]

I noticed that you created the article on Koopman von Neumann–wavefunction. A couple days ago I requested creation of the article on Koopman-von Neumann classical mechanics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Koopman-von_Neumann_classical_mechanics , but my request was not granted. Could you please recycle my article (with has a lot of info) into yours. It is very sad that some double work needed to be done. thanks. Denysbondar (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Denysbondar, I am thrilled about your message and glad to read your article proposal, of which I had been entirely unaware. It will take me some time to study it completely.
In writing the KvN-wavefunction article my aim has been to discuss underlying concepts and the context with other concepts of theoretical physics, and yet to keep the article as formula-free as possible; that is, to write a text that is precise and yet not "scary" to the casual reader. I have even placed all formulae and proof into a collapsed section. I would be pleased if we (you are most welcome to contribute!) could work in further content in a similar way in the next weeks or so. Best regards --Chris Howard (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I have now taken up some of the work on the derivation starting from operator axioms from the arxiv article and inspired from your Wikipedia article proposal.
Also, to keep you posted: I have subsequently chaning the placement of the "–" by moving it to Koopman–von Neumann wavefunction in line with established Wikipedia nomenclature. --Chris Howard (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Chris, thanks a lot for a well written article. Now I see why my submission was rejected! I finished merging the KvN entry with my previously rejected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Koopman-von_Neumann_classical_mechanics and it is no longer needed. Could you please delete it (or teach me how to do it).
Since the current article not just about the KvN wavefunction, I also would like to suggest to rename the Koopman–von Neumann wavefunction to more general Koopman–von Neumann classical mechanics or may be Koopman–von Neumann mechanics. Denysbondar (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
To keep you updated, I have already renamed the KvN page and deleted my previous entry. So no need for your input reagrding these issues. Thank for your collaboration! Denysbondar (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Denysbondar, good additions, especially as the two collapsed derivation sections (CM/QM from the operator axioms) offer a nice comparison. (Thwy are good to read also when opened in two separate browser windows next to each other for comparison.)
Also about the move, I do agree it is a better name, so again: well done.
After some further thinking it now struck me that because the article is called KvN classical mechanics, a reader would expect a full description of the theory in Hilbert space: with superposed states, wave function collapse etcetera. I am adding this to the article now; do feel free to add, correct, or change. Glad to collaborate with you too, --Chris Howard (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Gestalt psychology[edit]

Hi Chris! I put a {{technical}} tag on the text you wrote on quantum cognition modeling. Could you explain the content of this section a bit more? With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. I have now re-written it in a way that should be much better to understand (and placing references to abstract mathematics where needed in brackets). Please give it a look and see if you want to remove the {{technical}} tag. Thanks for your feedback! --Chris Howard (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining. It is still difficult - but then it is difficult matter, so I removed the tag. Lova Falk talk 13:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Good, and thanks also for the typo corrections. I have now added a (hopefully easier) intro from remarks of Anton Amann, which may help to put it in context. By the way, in case there should be a general impression that the section as a whole should rather be moved to a subsection in Quantum cognition, that could certainly be done. (As interesting as it is, I do not think that the subject is relevant enough at the moment to merit its own article.) Friendly regards, --Chris Howard (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
It could be a good idea to move the section. I think very few readers looking for "Gestalt psychology" do this because they want to read about quantum cognition modeling... (even thought it was rather interesting once you had explained it better) Lova Falk talk 19:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I have moved it now to its new place [13]. In any case the section has profited from its brief excursion into the Gestalt psychology article and your feedback ;-)
Of course, in its new place, the section may well change again, for example some of the easier-to-understand parts may be removed if some editors find it not technical enough now... so we should not count on it all remaining there in its current form. In any case, please feel free to change or shorten further that part of the text that has now remained in the Gestalt psychology article, or to move its content as you may find fit. It's been good discussing it with you. With friendly regards, --Chris Howard (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I feel the same way. And I now know what non-commutativity is. Face-smile.svg Lova Falk talk 08:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
PS Feel free to remove the bullets I put in. I like bullets very much for the clarity they create, but I know not everyone agrees... Lova Falk talk 09:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed bullets can be helpful. Yet here it's a literal quote, and the quoted text is without bullets - so better no in this specific case. --Chris Howard (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Bispinor[edit]

Hi!

You might want to drop by at Bispinor and comment on/edit the new material there. YohanN7 (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Yohan47,
A brief question to start: in your sentence: "In (C2), the second equality follows from [...]", what do you mean by "second"? The equation C2 just has one equality at the moment.
I haven't looked through all of the text yet. I quite like your introduction passages. Possibly you could go yet further in that sense, adding some more prose sentences as if you were for example trying to explain the general idea to a 17-year-old who is mathematically brilliant but does not know anything about representations of Lie algebras. Or if that's a too tough call, consider a student of physics who has just completed the first year of studies.
For example, your section on gamma matries is very well readable. Yet the reader may have some further or simple questions like: how many linearly independent basis elements are there altogether in that Clifford algebra (and which)? It may seem redundant, but in a Wikipedia article about such a subject it's probably better to risk to say things twice rather than to risk to lose the reader.
A different point on which you might know an answer: Any point to say that a bispinor can be seen as a left ideal of an algebra? See arXiv:quant-ph/0011026 for details. Cheers, --Chris Howard (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Good points!
  • That (C2) equation was originally a string of equality's which it obviously isn't any more. (I originally planned to cover the complete Clifford Algebra, and the various SO(3;1) representations spaces contained therein. It became too big and complex. The leftovers will probably go into Dirac algebra.)
  • I'll try to add more explanatory text, but this is difficult balancing. It must not evolve into a textbook. I don't think it can go into what a representation is. That would be two steps down, but perhaps the Lorentz rep article could, in prose, say what a rep is. In that article, it would be only one level away in abstraction.
  • There are 16 LI gamma matrices, I'll add that. The "which" part (totally antisymmetrized products of gammas) will have to go into Dirac algebra.
  • I better pass for now on the final Q, but I'll read the linked article. YohanN7 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. Yes indeed it's a question of balance, and with your recent additions the Bispinor article has already become quite good in giving the reader a helping hand.
FYI I have noticed there are a few statements about the bispinor in other articles:
  • (cited from: Dirac spinor) "In quantum field theory, the Dirac spinor is the bispinor in the plane-wave solution [...] of the free Dirac equation"
  • (cited from: Representation theory of the Lorentz group) "This is, up to a similarity transformation, the [..] Dirac spinor representation of so(3,1). It acts on the [...] bispinors, by matrix multiplication"
Would this be of interest for the Bispinor article too? --Chris Howard (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the articles should fit together - which they don't because there is an error in eqn E23 (which should be E2) in bispinor ;). I'll go over what I know needs fixing tomorrow night. YohanN7 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Generalized Clifford algebra[edit]

You may want to respond there, another editor questions it's purpose. Thanks. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 05:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, and I have replied on the article's talk page. --Chris Howard (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyclotropia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Torsion (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Homo reciprocans[edit]

Hi,

you contributed most of the references in Homo reciprocans. The article's lonely source, that IZA Discussion Paper, has already appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02242.x). Could you please check whether the statements and facts in the article still hold? If not, please remove or replace them. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. I have now also seen your message in this edit). The peer-reviewed article already appered in 2009; I do not have access to its full text content; in my edit I had cited the IZA Discussion Paper which was (and still is) available online. I do agree however it would be preferable to review the statements on the basis of the peer-reviewed article. --Chris Howard (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).