User talk:Michael C Price

Welcome!

Hello, Michael C Price, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

You did very nice edits on Many-worlds interpretation! Welcome to wikipedia! --DenisDiderot 10:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks DD -- glad you liked it. Thanks for the links. I'll probably confine myself straightforward textural edits for the near future whilst I get the hang of the metatools.--Michael C Price 12:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

IQ societies

Michael, you, together with user:Promking seem to have become the voice of those who are against the deletion of many of the articles. May I make a suggestion? Userfy them, and work on them until they would pass muster. An article like Giga is not going to stand on its own; it is a prime candidate for brief mention in a parent article. An article like Hoeflein (pardon the spelling) may well be able to, if it is properly filled with accounts or information that show notability. Further, if significant improvement is made to the article during the AfD, that is grounds for asking people to reconsider their opinions. My prime goal here is to make Wikipedia better according to the currently accepted rules and guidelines. You know my opinion of rap vs. IQ from the other discussions. Also, I would have had a different opinion on the run-of-the-mill public school than others, but wikipedia is run by consensus, and that is the current consensus. I'm sure you have heard of Nomic; Wikipedia, to me, is a living example thereof, and this is a particular case. Wikipedia would be better off with articles on these topics that meet its standards, but some of these, to me, just do not. -- Avi 00:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies for deleting the talk page text. Next time, I'll simply post my snarky comments beneath. Esrever 00:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I normally do.  :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD's etc.

I do not have a vendetta against High-IQ societies per se, although my Mensa membership leaves me with dubious of most of them. My goal is to make Wikipedia a better place overall, in accordance with the policies and guidelines in force at the present time. My instinct, as I write on my user page, is I'd rather no data than garbage/inappropriate data, but I am not going to throw out things on principle. Although I haven't undergone analysis recently ( :-P ) I do not think I am motivated by any sense of jealousy or spite, even though I know the results of the only accepted standaed test I took do not make me eligible for Prometheus etc. (I think my sigma was around 3.68 or 3.69 or something like that, I have to check. We dummies don'r have as good a memory as you geniuses :-P ). Researching these AfD's I have come across a lot of interesting data, such as the discussions of 24, 16, or 15 points of IQ per SD, that mega paper comparing various tests, the various College Board reports on the SAT, recentering, and correlations with g and intelligence, etc.) In my opinion, FWIW, these are all things that should be in the High-IQ article, and the various individual society articles should discuss their particular spins on them. You and those with whom you associate are in an excellent position to enhance Wikipedia in that regard, please do so. While walled gardens are items to be uprooted, truly notable information should be kept and enhanced. Thanks. -- Avi 17:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I only just scrapped into Mensa on the standard tests (I do better on untimed ones, and you might be surprised how well you and a lot of folks around here would do on them).

I am rather taken aback that you are explaining that you don't have a vendetta going -- I assumed you'd seen my apologies to you and Byrgenwulf on that score on various talk pages, although I most definitely think that that is a motivating undercurrent for some contributors.

Where we disagree is that I would rather almost any bad data be kept because it can be tagged with warning notices and be used as a basis for future expansion and correction. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed that edit, thank you, I do appreciate that. On the second topic, you may enjoy this, it has lead to many a bloodbath and userbox deletion crusade: meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies. Bon appétit -- Avi 17:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Many worlds interpretation

Hi. I have been looking at the article on the MWI, and while it is undoubtedly comprehensive, there are a number of quibbles I have with it...but rather than jump in headlong and start uprooting long-standing content (much of which is of good quality), I have left a message on the talk page there, outlining the first of my quibbles. I thought I should point this out to you, since it seems you have a bit of an editing history there and are an afficionado of the theory judging from the blurb on your userpage. Byrgenwulf 15:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just started answering your question on the MWI talk page. See over there shortly. Have you looked at universal wavefunction as well? --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Michael, I've discussed with you at the Hugh Everett page some time ago and I've just published an article about it that I'm sure you will be interested. Write to me at fabiofreitas at gmail.com so I can send you the article. Best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.128.60.79 (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mega Society

You may. Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits. This is good news for you.

The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable. Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight. Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted. The others supporting your view were. I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known. In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity. It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)

If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it "faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually not just me, but also "my supporters" as you call them, help develop the userfied version -- we were in the process of expanding the mega society article when the AfD guillotine came down. Anyway, that's besides the point, I am heartened that you seem to be indicating that the userfied article can be restored in good faith. In view of this I guess it is rather academic, but why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, not did I solicit them. I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith?

On a more general point I am disturbed at the divergence between procedure and practice in the AfD process. And it's not just a question of vague wording -- votes should not be the determining factor in the AfD (although in the DRV, yes); the guidelines are quite clear about this. And they are clear that if a consensus is not reached the default should be keep. There seems no way to address procedural errors within the AfD process, within the DRV process itself. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as admin now, and not as the closer, I can say that there was no flaw in this AfD in my opinion. Administrators are given "discretion," remember; although it is not formally written within policy that the standard for DRV review is what the law calls "abuse of discretion," admin discretion is still broad, and it is understood that two different admins might make different decisions in close cases: this is what the concept of discretion implies. One very common case where admin discretion is employed is discounting sockpuppets. This AfD began with a slew of IP addresses voting "keep" without offering a rationale. It is a fact of administrative life that, absent very compelling circumstances, this assures the article is of questionable merit. Floods of IP and new votes are very, very, very, very, very counterproductive: I cannot stress that enough, obviously. Unless many established Wikipedians appear to agree with these floods, and barring the intervention of an unprecedentally-powerful advocate, the article will be deleted. This is what the guideline is referring to when it says "AfD is not a vote-count": if two experienced Wikipedians say to delete an article, and five hundred IP address say to keep it, it will probably be deleted (of course, the admin checks the article to ensure that the Wikipedians' arguments are reasonable as well.) If the maxim "AfD is not a vote" is invoked 20 times a day at AfD, in 18 of those cases, it is invoked to ignore "a raw majority" of sockpuppets and new users arguing without sufficient background in policy. Needless to say, we get these sockpuppet floods in great numbers. Occasionally, perhaps, an article of merit is deleted because it so happens that it is supported by counterproductive means -- if that happens, the article's supporters need to understand that in the merits of the article, and not in the intricacies of process, lay their best hope. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I do understand the concept of discretion but that is not what I saw operating here: discretion operates within bounds and these bounds in practice appear to bear no relation to documented policy, although I do take on board your point about IP addresses. Even if practice is not going to change (and I suspect it isn't) the policy documents need to be updated to reflect this. Returning to the specific DRV, can I remind you of my question of how you discounted the votes of User:GregorB or User:Canon? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by your assumptions. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It was eventually (but far from initially) admitted by User Canon that he is Chris Cole, an officer of the Mega Society. Therefore, his participation in the deletion and deletion review processes arguably constitutes a conflict of interest and an instance of "shilling". DaturaS 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? It is a conflict of interest, perhaps, were he the closing administrator, but I see nothing preventing him from voicing his opinion. -- Avi 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig

Hi, Michael, I think you will be interested in this MfD. ---CH 23:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Hi. The RFC I was responding to was posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. There wasn't a separate discussion, it just links to the talk page. --Alecmconroy 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Michael,Ijust saw your message today.im on aol and am blocked from editing every other time i log in for some reason about subjects i never posted about SOOO I dont often read my talk page. my Email is nazirenemystic@aol.com. thats more relible.NazireneMystic 01:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael C. Price, see my reply to your post on my user page. --Ovadyah 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: FYI Mega Society Judgement

Thanks for taking the time. The new article looks good to me, it is going to be much harder to shoot down... GregorB 18:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Inflation

I understand your concern, but it doesn't need to be taken to talk first, although I should have been clearer and noted that your comment appears to be OR. By whom is it seen as today's version of a steady state theory? In fact the two are fundamentally different. Hell, I can't figure out how steady state theory fits in that cat: it was not a pseudoscience, it was a scientically valid theory theory that was falsified, there's a big difference. In any case I placed a fact tag on that statement meaning a cite is required. •Jim62sch• 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The similarity is that both the steady-state universe and eternal inflation adhere to the perfect cosmological principle -- although the latter on a scale beyond that of the observable universe. I don't regard this as OR and I'll see if I can find a citation. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations added: Past-Eternal inflation can be viewed as a mainstream steady state theory.[1], since it adheres to the perfect cosmological principle on the largest scale. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine

Recruiting meatpuppets to overwhelm legitimate edits of articles is not appropriate Wikipedia behavior. Please stop encouraging vandalism of the pseudoscience article. -- 70.232.110.230 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop pushing your POV. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to include both POVs: that's what NPOV is about. The current articles fail to acknowledge the mainstream viewpoint. -- 70.232.110.230 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cri du canard (talk • contribs) 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC) (also formerly 70.232.110.230)

Hi Michael. I think you doing a good job on repelling the "pseudo--" stuff disparagement. Sorry if we're all a little tense right now, I know I am pretty insulted about the "PS" nonsense, too. Although I wrote immediately after you to maintain chronological sequence, my quote & request was for 70.232.110.230's demonstration of hard facts, I should have additionally addressed him directly by his id number. Sorry for the confusion, I have now added 70.232's correct number so everyone is clear who I am requesting add'l sourcing from. You might want to delete your reply, since my inadequate id is the source of contention, thread control is going wild already. --69.178.41.55 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reminder -- straightened things out. It might be a good idea if you created login account/user name....... :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, it's like trying to reason with a primal force of nature. This person seems intent on wrecking the orthomed related pages and billboarding any disparaging link that can be twisted to his pov. He's invoking Ackoz(= Azmoc), an indfinitely blocked identity or editor. What next?--TheNautilus 05:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Reason is a waste of time with this sort. We'll have get him blocked over a 3RR violation, which requires coordination amongst the OM friendly. What do you think? --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh...

Moved to MWI talk page -- your edits were probably clashing with mine, or there's some problem with an old talk page version being reverted back. Should be okay now. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection for Physics article

I'm willing to semiprotect it, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus for this action on the talk page. I think the policy is wrong:general articles such as that one should be easily semiprotected without encountering wikirocracy.--CSTAR 03:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite follow your answer, but you're right there is no consensus, so I withdraw my request (for the moment). --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are all sorts of procedural obstacles for doing anything which restrict freedom of editing. However, for general articles (with higher visibility) semiprotection should be no big deal.--CSTAR 13:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Teaching physics, the contemporary way

http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/~cew2/P209/part11.pdf and here:

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch11.pdf Have a look at chapter 11.8.

Already read them. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on your edits it seems that you haven't understood. Try reading again or taking the respective course Ati3414 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right, if someone disagrees with you it's because they're stupid or ignorant, not you. Thanks for the info, O wise one. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that Ati3414 20:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing my POV tag

I object to the POV of the lead paragraph. -- Cri du canard 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And I am happy with it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that you are happy with it is necessary, but not sufficient, to remove the POV tag. -- Cri du canard 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Same logic applies to its insertion. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you say that shows you greatly misunderstand Wikipedia POV tags. The tag is a flag of a lack of consensus over whether the article complies with NPOV. To claim that there needs to be a consensus over the addition of the tag is false. The fact that three separate editors have complained about the pro-minority-POV-bias of the article shows that there is not consensus, and that is sufficient to add the tag. Consensus is needed before the tag can be removed. -- Cri du canard 12:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

FYI, you've been listed as an involved party at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-09 Orthomolecular medicine and related pages. My advice: ignore the case until it affects you personally, or you are asked for direct involvement. linas 14:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly what I shall do. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Photon mass

Sorry, you cannot say that the photon mass is E/c^2. This simply gives a lot of ammunition to dozens of crackpots . Especially in light of the many experiments that constrain the photon ONLY "mass" to about 6*10^-17 eV which is about 17 orders of magnitude smaller than the 3eV you would get by applying m=E/c^2. Now, if you want wiki to be the place that encourages the crackpots, this is another story, just say so. Ati3414 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say "the photon mass is E/c^2" nor "that there is no such thing as relativistic mass ". If you have trouble reading English, just say so. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the sentence that I keep deleting and you keep putting back in Ati3414 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The clause is "The relativistic mass of such a particle may be taken to be its energy divided by c². " That implies neither of your above claims about what I said. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Such particle" in the context is the photon. Therefore it means m_photon=e/c^2 where e is the energy of the photon Ati3414 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Which implies neither of your above claims about what I said. I'm glad you raised the 3RR issue -- you've motivated me to investigate the reporting procedure. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You obviusly can't read English, nor do you understand physics. As to 3RR , I can report you just the same, BFD.Ati3414 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, that's your priviledge. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest a solution? The mass m as defined in the Energy-momentum relation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 is zero for the photon. This is normally called the rest mass but we cannot use that term for the photon because it always moves at c. Might I suggest "intrinsic mass," defining it explicitly via the E-p relation if necessary? - AG, Stockport, UK.

I've added "intrinsic mass" as a synonym for "rest mass"--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Kinetic energy of single particles

Does not exist as an objective thing. Proof: Translate to a frame where the molecule is at rest, and kinetic energy is gone, poof. Kinetic energy is a property of systems, not things. It is not stored in THINGS, but in the fabric of spacetime itself, as Wheeler and Taylor note. You have to go to a system of 2 or more molecules to get kinetic energy which can't be made to go away by choice of frame. THAT energy is weighable. And that frame where it can be weighed as invariant mass, along with the rest energies of the particles themselves, is the COM frame. SBHarris 20:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Wheeler. I often have a problem with this "if it ain't a tensor or is geometry it don't exist" position. Can't say I agree -- seems a misuse of langauge. Anyway, it can still be weighed, no matter how you define it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Point is there's only two ways to weigh it: 1) get into its rest frame (in which case the kinetic energy and the mass associated with it goes away), or 2) Trap it, in which case you have introduced a second object (the box) and now have a system of two objects and and must weigh in the COM frame of same. So kinetic energy (KE) is only weighable as a system property, which is why it only has invariant mass as a system property.

No geometry or tensors, here! Think of two equal mass M particles, headed in opposite directions, at a mutual separation velocity we'll call V. All the KE is in particle #1, as seen from viewpoint of #2. But KE is all in #2 when seen from #1. And divided equally between them when seen from the COM frame, in which they are each headed away with equal velocity V/2.

But how much IS the KE? It's not the same in these scenarios. From the rest frame view of either particle, system KE is (1/2)MV^2. From the COM frame where both particles move at V/2, the KE of each particle is (1/2)M *(V/2)^2 = (1/8) MV^2 for a combined KE of (1/4) MV^2. We just lost half of our KE by chosing that frame. Now, how much mass and WEIGHT did we lose? If you're convinced we can weigh KE, which KE value do we weigh? This will either be immediately apparent to you, or else you'll learn something by figuring it out. You see, you can't get away from the system problem if you want to talk about mass. Nothing but algebra is needed, but even so you do have to get used to the spooky relativistic proposition that energy is not localizable. SBHarris 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't buy it. The algebra is equivalent to the tensor or frame argument. I can transform away velocity in a Galilean frame -- that doesn't mean things don't move. For the same reason "unlocalisable" energy is not spooky -- just frame dependent, which is why we use the Stress-energy-momentum pseudotensors when we have to. I know your position is a popular one, but it boils down to how we want to use the langauge; it doesn't have physical content (our positions are not empirical distinguishable). --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blatent lies

The orthomolecular medicine article currently contains a statement that is utterly, totally false. I am not deleting it because I'm already sick of the lunacy of the dispute.

"Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease." [2][3]

Any disease? Really? Scurvy, anyone? We are now denying that vitamin C cures scurvy? Feel free to start whatever proceeddings are needed to ban Cri du Canard as a vandal/crank. I've had enough of this non-sense. linas 14:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is from a reliable source, so you can't delete it without consequences. Scurvy, vit. C? What's that got to do with OM? Keep in mind guys, your edit histories are under observation, and there is accruing massive evidence of conspiracy against other editors, bad faith editng on your parts, as well as failure to assume good faith. Your words above are quite incriminating. -- Fyslee 22:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is not a reliable source -- it hasn't been through peer-review. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There are other types of reliable sources recognized by Wikipedia. It also happens to be a summary of the published scientific record, which has been peer-reviewed. Since you claim it's not a reliable source, please provide the precise quotes from the policy page to back up your claim. -- Fyslee 23:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am deeply troubled by your attitude on this page Michael, particularily the lack application of WP:NPOV. Further to your comment on Cri's talk page: "Restoring text deleted in bad faith is not in violation of 3RR.", that in fact can contribute to 3rr. The only exeptions are in the case of biographies of living people, banned users, or blatent vandalism, of the "ERIC IS A FAG" kind. Allegations of concerted action have been made against you and a fellow editor which are very worrying after reviewing some of the evidence and may neccesitate a review of some of those editing the page. I suggest that you review some of Wikipedia cores polies very carefully regarding some of your interpratations of the rules. Jefffire 14:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:VAND#Types_of_vandalism

Sneaky vandalism

Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos.

Canard is adept at adding misinformation. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR and AGF on orthomolecular medicine

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.

• 10:55 am
• 10:37 am
• 9:52 am

-- Cri du canard 13:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.

• 11:27 am

-- Cri du canard 13:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for correcting my edit of De Sitter universe. Even I am confused by my own edit. The edit summary I left was "avoid redirect" but there was no redirect involved there. I must have had multiple windows open at the time and chose the wrong one to 'fix' -- thank you for correcting my error. SWAdair 04:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Afshar's Experiment and Many Worlds

Hi Michael, I've been wondering whether Afshar's experiment actually gives evidence for the many-worlds interpretation (contrary to what Afshar believes). When the observer measures a photon at detector 1 he can surely deduce that the photon must have gone through pinhole 1. But in that case, if there is no scattering or absorption from the wires, then surely a "mirror" photon must have travelled through pinhole 2 at the same time in order that the photon wavefunction is zero at the wires. One can only assume that this mirror photon triggered detector 2 and was registered in a "parallel" consciousness of the observer. I guess I'm asserting that each "world" in this interpretation of the experiment is a phenomenological world in the consciousness of the observer. Maybe I'm arguing for many-minds rather than many-worlds - I don't know.

User:John Eastmond 19:30, 22 August 2006

You've convinced me :-) , although I imagine Afshar will blow a fuse to hear that. Of course I regard every experiment that reconfirms Schrodinger's wave-equation as reconfirming MWI -- but your interpretation of the result is certainly very clear, coherent and concise. And I'd better stop here or I won't be. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though I say so myself, I think this type of analysis of Afshar's experiment is an advance over Deutsch's many-worlds explanation of the straight-forward two-slit experiment (as described in his book Fabric of Reality). Whereas most people stop at the wavefunction as a description of the photon state, Deutsch tries to go further and describes the wavefunction as the superposition of real photons travelling along different paths. In the simple two-slit experiment I don't think there is a compelling reason for anyone to follow him in his many-worlds description (unless they happen to like that sort of philosophical viewpoint). More specifically the individual "real" photons posited by Deutsch are never observed so why should they be assumed to have a reality beyond that of the wavefunction itself? I think Afshar's experiment is different. The fact that detector 1 triggers gives the observer real information that allows him to infer the existence of a real photon having been localised at pinhole 1. In other words the observer's "world" of a detector 1 trigger includes the valid deduction of the previous existence of a "real" photon at pinhole 1. In order to reconcile this fact with the fact of no scattering from the wires he is forced to accept that another real photon went through pinhole 2 at the same time and was presumably detected by detector 2 and consciously registered as "real" by another version of the observer's consciousness. It seems to me that whereas the classic two-slit interference experiment allows a many-paths explanation, Afshar's experiment demands a many-worlds one. Do you think this is right? Would it be worth someone writing a paper putting this point of view? -- User:John Eastmond 13:00, 23 August 2006

Yes to both questions, I think. It would be sort of cool to write an article on the subject, even if it got no further than the e-archives. I tried to read Deutsch's Fabric of Reality, but it sends me to sleep. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The RfC comment

No, I did mean it as a subsection of what you said - I was agreeing with you. Thanks for asking though. Batmanand | Talk 13:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Your comments at [2] would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, bunix 03:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sarfatti

Oops, yes; of course. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro to QM article

Dear Michael,

Thanks for your help with the introductory article on quantum physics. I've done what I can to make that article both accurate and comprehensible, but some of the things written by other people still seem to me to be questionable. Some contributors have had their own ax to grind, and in some cases I have communicated fruitlessly just to try to understand what these contributors are actually trying to say. I carried my work down to the point of trying to get a clear picture of what Heisenberg was doing with his original matrices and then ground to a halt and haven't had time to try to work through the math and the scattered references that are available. Beyond that I have made only obvious edits where it is clear what the writer was trying to say. I would like it very much if you would read through for both clarity (why can't most people write like Heisenberg and Einstein?) and accuracy. P0M 20:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about trying to deduce what Heisenberg was trying to say -- even Steve Weinberg says he can't follow Heisenberg's train of deductive thought in his original article. Just concentrate on trying to explain QM as currently understood. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have the feeling that much of what is said about QM is fuzzier than it needs to be or should be. For instance, saying that a*b != b*a without mentioning that "a" and "b" represent matrices that are being multiplied strikes me as being not very helpful. To make something clear and simple I have to really understand it, not just read secondary sources and paraphrase them. I don't feel that I actually understand any of it very well. P0M 04:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Trying to reach an infobox consensus here: [3]. Please can you weigh-in with your opinion? SureFire 00:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Quantum immortality

Hello, I have been working on neuroscience recently, but I saw your big edits in MWI. So if you want, you can add the argument against quantum suicide argued by me in a letter to Max Tegmark, not replied of course (I think all scientist appeared in New Scientist, and similar popular journals are quite resistant to critique). But since my argument is quite extraordinary and safe, I think you can add it as a rebuttal (or why NOT possible proof of MWI?). Basicly my rebuttal of Max is like that:

• Q1: what is special in the quantum suicide?
• A1: the fact that consciousness is intrinsically binary - you cannot be in superposition of "conscious + inconscious"! (note: this does not imply you cannot be in intermediate state of dreaming, hallucinating, etc. The argument in weakest form is that the edge alternatives conscious vs. unconscious are not subject to q-superposition)
• Q2: I want to perform a safe quantum suicide, what should I do?
• A2: Well, since I am anesthesiologist (actually used to be), I have proposed quantum self-anesthesia with particle decay. The logic of Max Tegmark should be identical, and you will always remain in the branched Universe in which the self-anesthesia have failed. I think however that you can quantum self-anesthetize yourself, so the quantum suicide logic fails completely. You should be able to branch as dead brain + body without conscious experience in 50% of the trials. Q.E.D.

I hope you like my simple rebuttal, so you can add this "safe quantum suicide" version proposed by me. More on QM next time :-) Danko Georgiev MD 10:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Danko, I'm having problems following your English, so I can't quite tell what you mean. Having looked at Quantum Suicide and Quantum Immortality I do think the articles should be merged. Do you agree? --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes better merge both entries.

What about my English, I think it is not the language problem, the problem is possibly a conceptual one. Basicly I want to prove that Tegmark is completely mistaken, but I leave the "door open" [with irony] suggesting that those who don't believe my words can try to arrange the "safe" setup with quantum self-anesthesia, and try to observe the "quantum self-anesthesia failure" (as analogue of quantum immortality).

• As far as I understand the logic of the quantum suicide advocate is as follows: (i) q-superposition of conscious + unconscious is IMPOSSIBLE, (ii) only conscious brain can observe, then conclusion (iii) [WRONG!] from the perspective of the branching conscious observer he must always remain in the branch of the Universe in which he is still consciously observing.
• Now my own argumentation is that step (iii) is wrong non-sequitur conclusion, and indeed you should be able to branch in Universes that contain nonconscious brain state of yours. In this case however "quantum immortals" (ironic term for the believers of the q-immortality idea) should NOT so confidently proceed towards testing of MWI, because the quantum suicide game is as dangerous as the real classical playing of Russian roulette game, shooting consequtively e.g. 4 times in your head.
• Well, I hope all this is clarified now. I use some inronic moments in the text, so in Bulgarian the passage will be also not-understandable if one does not get the sense of irony. More seriously, I think that everyone that has gone anesthesia, or more simply everyday "unconsciousness" during natural sleep, has assured himself that "he can be in unconscious state", and "branched in Universe where is unconscious", so the whole quantum immortality idea that is based on the WRONG conclusion that "you cannot be branched in Universe where you are in unconscous state", is ridiculous. Or if the "q-immortality advocates" want to clarify further their position claiming that I have misunderstood their position on the branching of the Universe, they will have big problem to explain why there is no problem for you to shoot in your head with the quantum gun. Danko Georgiev MD 03:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Just to analyze the structure of the main thesis of the Q-immortals: [1] "from the perspective of the branching conscious observer he must always remain in the branch of the Universe in which he is still consciously observing". It is word by word correct summary of the whole idea, but is wrong conclusion. There is intuitive feeling that [2] "from the perspective of the branching conscious observer" is equivalent to [3] "the human is branched into Universe where he is conscious". Yes, there is contradiction in saying [4] "the conscious observer is in unconscious state", however at no place of the reasoning I am forbidded to use the fact that [5] "conscious observer can evolve into unconscious state". So this statement [5] implies "change/transition in the state of consciousness" and I am nowhere obliged to arrive at paradox [4] in my thesis that you can branch in Universe where you are dead. I say "the human is branched into Universe where he is unconscious", utilizing the fact [5] that the "conscious observer" can change itself into "dead unconscious human". Remark: The whole fallacy is immediately resolved if one is hinted that "impossibility to have superposition of conscious + unconscious" DOES NOT imply "conscious state cannot evolve into unconscious state". The temporal evolution of the human performing suicide at no point suggests that it was in superposition of conscious + unconscious, it has however both conscious states and non-conscious states at different time points of his life. This should be clarify the whole issue, and exactly point out at what step of the logical reasoning the "quantum immortals" make the overlook. Danko Georgiev MD 03:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

p.s. I have read the whole article quantum immortality, and it is COMPLETELY WRONG. It is written in good faith by someone, but all the reasoning is flawed, as decribed in my analysis above. Danko Georgiev MD 03:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Mike, I hope you will read this story [4] - AMAZING ONE! I am amazed by the fact how a writer makes the MWI look like as the most stupid theory invented ever. And I will repeat what Morpheus says in the movie The Matrix "Everything begins with a choice", and so in oder to have a real meaning for the word "choice" then only one Universe should be there ... Danko Georgiev MD 08:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It is, of course, very easy to make the MWI sound ridiculous, just as once, no doubt, the idea that the Earth went round the sun must have sounded. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Fields

Thank you for casting your vote on the Einstein infobox. Please now go to [5] to give your opinion on how you want the individual fields modified. SuperGirl 08:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

I didn't see a consensus on demoting the QM page to a topic under another heading either. So let's delete the page before it confuses too many people, and talk seriously about organization later. David R. Ingham 06:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

You need to check out your religion infobox entry on the Isaac Newton page. Someone has fiddled with it. I preferred what you had before. Pls can you trouble shoot. Also on a similar topic, you are needed here [6]. SuperGirl 23:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Too tired today though... --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Mega Society 2

I've taken the liberty of re-creating the article Mega Society from you sub page. I think enough time has passed, but I could be worng. -- Avi 13:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You did warn us

Hi, I realy didnt know the extent Wikilawyering can effect the POV of an artical. WOW. Looks like I stepped on lots of toes. I didnt expect to have any lasting changes but so much trickery has gone on at this time just mentioning it is being discribed as making personal attacks so I do not think it will be long before my acount is blocked. Thanks for the warning.NazireneMystic 23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ebionite article is a pale shadow of its former self. I may return to it one day, but I'm learning to avoid contentious subjects. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael, you are welcome to work on the article anytime as far as I'm concerned. It will not be contentious for much longer. :) Ovadyah 03:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's not just the contentiousness of it, but also the way a lot of good material has been lost (e.g. about John the Baptist, Jesus as archangel, direct quotes from the GoE...) and I got pissed off at Loremaster's unyielding attitude to this. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean, LOL I have preditory editors following me around. Ahh my fan club. They are also tring to do something about my talk page or anything else that points to tactics regarding that artical. Sorry to bring him here, didnt think it would happen. Actualy I was wondering what you thought about the Holographic Universe theory. My study of the spiritual law kind of lead me to it?NazireneMystic 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My take on the Holographic Universe theory is that it is over-hyped. I suspect that it may be no more than a consequence of the entropy of black holes and the Bekenstein bound -- but I could be wrong. Hang on, that's the holographic principle. Do you refer to David Bohm's ideas on quantum theory? If so I'm a many-worldsist, which means I don't believe in the Holographic Universe. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

I will work on my spelling however my post while never refuted by the POV pushers have long been ignored before I stopped signing my post. From what I have seen so far I can not take Wikipedia serious enough to sign into my account to do so.

BTW what point's have I brought up in the Ebionite talk page do you have problems with? and more important, what is the reason you do not agree with them? Do you think Yah should have the work by the leader of his religous group as a reference in the Ebionite artical or was it some other point.Nazirenemystic

I sympathise with your language difficulties (English is not an easy langauge to learn), however I would still encourage you to login in and sign your posts. (Signing in is not too much trouble -- I only have to log about once a month or so. Perhaps you need to change your options or something?)

The disagreement I referred to was about Alec's classification of the ancient sources as primary sources rather than secondary sources. I can see where he's coming from here and sort of 3/4 agree with him (albeit reluctantly). I don't think he was saying this is in an attempt to censor the article. Assuming bad faith from other people (as Loremaster also does) will not help the situation.

I think you have been somewhat harshly treated (I opposed the deletion of the modern ebionite article, if you recall). --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice to Meet You

I wasn't trying to be too disrespectful, just funny, but I guess at your expense, when I wrote "Ha, Ha..." in Schrodinder's Cat Discussion. I apologize if you thought I was being an ass. I just thought it was hyper-uncanny that we were unknowingly writing simultaneously -probably the word "sealed" itself [!], in a discussion involving nothing less than the potential correspondence (the "extra sensory perception" of Schrodinger's Cat) between the circumstance of the Cat's knowlege and it's ability to change it's fate, and that I so happened to post first, basically answering your question before I knew you asked it.

I was freaked and later made the inside joke I thought only the most observant would appreciate. I couldv'e exercised more humility. Only later did I learn more about you and thought that you might deserve a more respect. --Charlesrkiss 16:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't think you were an ass -- I just wasn't quite sure what you were trying to say. Is the article clearer now? --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming vandals

I was amused at your recent welcome for vandals [7] :) I suppose the rules (policy? guidelines? wikilaws?) say that's what you've gotta do. I'm afraid I'm beyond the stage where I can display that level of sarcasm. I'm slowly becoming convinced that the whole exercise is hopeless and we do far more harm than good by pretending there is anything useful to be found here.--CSTAR 05:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, glad it made you laugh. Blatant vandalism doesn't bother me -- it's the POV cranks that wind me up.--Michael C. Price ^talk 12:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that bothers me more.--CSTAR 14:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Alan Guth the atheist

Here is a site map of the website; http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/index.htm .

It is even critical of Christianity.

Okay, it seems non-creationist.  :-) But the claim still seems ill-sourced, being based on Guth's book "The Inflationary Universe". I don't recall any atheist affirmation in it, although he does say something, somewhere (where?, I can't remember) about preferring beliefs to be empirically based. Sounds like an atheist to me, but I'm sure many religious people would disagree! --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mega society 2

Hi Michael, I am sorry but I have no copy of the article. Try to ask an admin. Happy editing, --Ioannes Pragensis 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User:MichaelCPrice/mega2, good luck. -- Avi 20:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Avi, and thanks Ioannes for being sensible! --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Should I just delete the mega2 page for you? It qualifies as a speedy if the author wishes it deleted, but it is in your user space. -- Avi 22:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, I'll keep as an extra sandbox. And thanks again for your help. Crazy world, eh? --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot restore it directly per wiki policy. I suggest first WP:DRV and perhaps mention on WP:AN/I. -- Avi 17:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If the problem continues I might take it to WP:AN/I, although it has just become moot since someone else has just re-created it. Well, sort of... --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw that discussion on the talkpage on Cosmic inflation

I will not post those edits again, but what did you think of them? Did it describe "hybrid inflation" and "Catholic inflation" well?

The Catholic link leaves me completely cold; as far as I could see the sources do not link the c.church with inflation. As for hybrid inflation, I've never studied it -- my knowledge is limited to what I've read in the article about it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Julian Lincoln Simon

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.

You have done a great deal to improve the article about Julian Lincoln Simon, but instigating a massive NPOV edit war while insisting there isn't even a POV dispute at all doesn't reflect on you well and has made the article noticably worse. Please calm down and refrain from editing the article for a while. Robotsintrouble 01:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Schrödinger's cat

Please don't just revert changes saying, "I don't agree". You do not have the right of final veto on editing decisions. If you wish to discuss the removal of the pictures, please do so on the talk page. Reverting good-faith edits by other editors with "I don't agree with this edit" is not acceptable editing behaviour on Wikipedia. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 02:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I said more that just "I don't agree" in the edit comment. Please don't be selective in your reporting. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You said it hours after you reverted the changes and also after I posted by comments in here. I can't help being not reporting things if they haven't yet happened when I report them. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 09:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We talking about different things. I'm talking about my edit summary comment, made at the same time as the edit (obviously) where I said: "I don't agree that the extra pictures don't add anything". --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

Banners on Many worlds interpretation

Is there any reason for keeping those banners? I'm sure every WP article has room for improvement, but this one seems fine with me. Some of it may be obscure (mea culpa) but the intro at least is readable.--CSTAR 18:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi CSTAR, I'm not going to object to removing the banners. I agree the intro is readable. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites article dispute

Michael, I've repeatedly provided explanations for my revert edits in light of your acts of vandalism. I have already explained to why the Lead does not need to mention your inserts which are already mentioned elsewhere in the article. It is ridiculous of you to describe the deletion of these inserts as inserting original research. I've discussed all these issues on the Talk:Ebionites page and my views and actions are supported by User:Ovadyah position which is identical to my own. There is no consensus possible since you are using wikilawyering to impose your own POV into the article which I am trying to remove to preserve a neutral point of view. Period. --Loremaster 01:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I asked Meta to revert the article to the version right before the last totally disputed tag and drop the protection level to semi-protected. As I pointed out to Meta, despite all the incivility on the talk page, we have never been in an edit war, so there may yet be hope of progress on the article. Ovadyah 02:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's true, we two have never been in an edit war and, despite our differences (whatever they are, about which I am still unclear), I'm sure we could work together to reach a consensus. Loremaster is the problem: he doesn't understand policy, always thinks he's right and doesn't seek consensus. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mirror reflections

Dear Mike, concerning the $\pi$ phase shift resulting from mirror reflection, please see my post here. I think the confusion arised because of not making clear the distinction between q-amplitude and observable (needs squaring). So when one speaks about photon, it is not clear what the photon is - the q-amplitude, or the detected observable/particle/light intensity. I hope the confusion will be clarified soon. I have just noted that squaring $e^{\pi /2}$ gives $e^{\pi }$, best Danko Georgiev MD 12:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Danko, I'm busy right now, but certainly it is easy to mix up the probability amplitude with the probability density / intensity. I'll look into it more in a few days (hopefully). --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike, since you raised the issue of the validity of the equations used by me in describing the Unruh's setup, I hope you will help in correctly figuring out where is the confusion. In my view if the observable light is shifted by half wavelength, then the photon quantum amplitude must be shifted by $\pi /2$, so that when squared it gives half wavelength shift. So the imaginary term that I have used $\imath$ when squared gives -1. Danko Georgiev MD 09:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

I did seek talk page resolution. Anyway I am content with the ban since it has been applied equally. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[8] made on January 14 2007 to Ebionites

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 11:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Discount function

Michael-- I took out your addition to the article on discount functions, because it seemed to be copied verbatim from the abstract of the article on pubmed you linked to. Instead, I inserted links to the wp articles on exponential and hyperbolic discounting. I think there's lots of room to include assessments of discounting assumptions, and would be delighted if you'd return to do it. Jeremy Tobacman 16:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites

Please refrain from editting until March, as agreed. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Micheal, I was refraining from editing the Ebionites article until I noticed someone vandalized it so I felt justified in correcting that. Then I noticed a sentence in the introduction that deserved a minor edit for the sake of clarity. Beyond that I wasn't planning on doing anything else. That being said, I find it amusing that you are taking the time to chide me for editing the article when we are getting close to the end of March and you have done NOTHING to expand and/or improve the article. So shut up and get to work. ;) --Loremaster 17:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael, You may not like my spelling but at least I am not among thoes involved in the Ebionite "article" that seem to attack any evidence that does not support a narrow point of view held by two editors. [User claims to be NazireneMystic] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.128.182 (talk • contribs) 4:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, despite our differences in viewpoint. I've more or less given up on the Ebionites article for the moment -- I'm too busy with other things to waste much time arguing with bigots who refuse to follow wikipolicy (by which I do not mean you). At some point I will return. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blind as a Bat

Thanks for restoring that link on James Tabor. I just didn't see it. I guess I'm blind as a bat that late at night. Reverend Mommy 13:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

Noether's theorem

My reversion at Noether's theorem was based on objecting to all the changes, not just the one which I mentioned. Please do not assume that, just because I mention one reason, there are no others. JRSpriggs 06:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I can hardly be blamed for thinking that, can I, since you did not discuss or mention the other reasons? What was your objection to the mention of the description of the phase of a wave function and its charge as conjugate variables, which you also reverted? --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not certain that those variables are conjugate (although they certainly are related), and there were already enough examples of conjugate pairs. JRSpriggs 08:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It was recently added to the article by Enormousdude (talk · contribs) and then restored after I removed it by SteakNShake (talk · contribs). I lack confidence in either of these persons as physicists or editors. JRSpriggs 09:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about the variables as not being conjugate variables; I'll check later today and revert back if needed.--Michael C. Price ^talk 10:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The noether current associated with phase is a charge carrying EM current, not charge itself. The article needs amending to reduce the over-emphasis on conjugate variables. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

MWI

(→Required assumptions and controversy - Not necessarily unprovable (e.g. MWI -- depends on your POV); tightened up some wording and linked directled to interpretations of QM)

How would you test for MWI in the "real" world? the other points hinge on this but do not necessarily follow even if MWI is shown, just my curiosity.Hardyplants 10:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair question. I was thinking of quantum computing. Here's what the MWI article says:

In a more practical vein, in one of the earliest papers on quantum computing, he (David Deutsch -ed) suggested that parallelism that results from the validity of MWI could lead to "a method by which certain probabilistic tasks can be performed faster by a universal quantum computer than by any classical restriction of it". Deutsch has also proposed that when reversible computers become conscious that MWI will be testable (at least against "naive" Copenhagenism) via the reversible observation of spin.

So not testable yet, but perhaps one day?? --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt, I like the clean up did with the page its an improvement. Also, but least importantly, I will stick with my POV on this subject for now- thank you for responding and have a good day. Hardyplants 10:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

@Talk:High_IQ_society#External_link_controversyTstrobaugh 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hostel Part:II

Hi, I reverted two of your edits as I feel they added detail which was not necessary namely:

• The original plot outline details that Lorna's blood is bathed in, the fact that it 'showers' into the tub is irrelevent.
• The original plot outline details that the genitals are fed to the dogs, again the fact that they are 'tossed' is irrelevent.

If we were trying to write a literary masterpiece then such descriptions would be quite apt. The fact that we are not, I feel, results in the plot outline just being overly long.

The friend/brother part was removed by mistake. Apologies. RaseaC 15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see how you judge "tossed" as irrelevant. Also please note the original description of Lorna's death was incorrect, since it implied her back was only slashed once. I also felt the original description implied that Ms Bathory was only doused in blood at the end -- which is not correct.--Michael C. Price ^talk 09:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Valid points. However,

• The original revision of Lorna's death states 'slashes' (as in plaural) which suggests that this happened a number of times. Also, I would argue that 'bathe' by itself is more suitable because it suggests Ms Bathory spent time covering herself in the blood, rather than simply dousing herself as you rightly pointed out as incorrect.
• As a compromise I would suggest the castration part should read '...castrates Stuart, tosses his genitalia to the dogs and leaves him to bleed to death.'

While both are minor matters, plot outlines read better if excessive descriptions are cut out.RaseaC 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Final point accepted of course, but I felt the original description was slightly misleading:

• I didn't read "slashes at" as implying plural - quite the reverse actually, but perhaps that was just how I read it. It seems to me that the point in repeatedly slashing Lorna's back was -- apart from the sadism involved -- to splash herself with blood before the bath proper. Otherwise Ms bathory would have simply slit her throat first and be done with the preliminaries.
• Re the dogs, I could go with the compromise -- it's the explicit "to eat" bit you object to, is it? :-) Perhaps you could leave in the "orders" part instead -- the point is that once Beth had shown herself capable of murder the organization was prepared to accept her commands, to some extent.--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Create an informational template for how to use primary sources

Template:Primary Sources

Create a template warning about the improper use of primary sources and how to use them correctly. Ovadyah 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I created a template for primary sources with the content from the Ebionites talk page. We can play with the formating and make this into a nice template. Ovadyah 22:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool! --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Guess What. There is already a Template:Primarysources We should use that or change the name of this template to something else and TfD the template I created. Ovadyah 14:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Good find. The generic template is fine, but I feel that only something personalised, with examples, to the article and its problems is going to have any impact. The problem is that most editors (and not just newbies) have no idea about primary vs secondary sources -- and why should they? It's not something you need to be aware of most of the time at Wiki, until you get into a really tricky subject where everything is disputed and subject to conflicting deeply held religious POVs. I suggest we leave the personalised template on the talk page and perhaps add the generic one to the article itself? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I TfD'ed the template because the similarity of the names is too confusing. We can still keep the content and give the template a different name. Ovadyah 14:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't add the generic template to the article because it suggests there is currently a problem with primary sources. I don't think that's the case. I intended the template to be used on the talk page as a caution to editors to avoid improper use of primary sources. Ovadyah 14:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits to Most ancient common ancestor

Hearing no objections for over 6 hours, I reverted your edits to Most ancient common ancestor. I'm sure you made them in good faith, and the version I reverted to does have serious OR problems, but you replaced one article with another that was weak and confusing at best. I'm open to gutting again, but only after a discussion of what needs to be done and a day or two to source the existing article. Of course, this may all be mooted by the AfD in progress. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

To say the version you've reverted does have "serious OR problems" is putting it rather mildly. I guess I don't care anymore. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Good changes in the Pseudotensor and Stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor

I saw that you improved the 2 articles. I haven't done anything recently about them because I have other priorities at the moment, mostly "Curvilinear coordinates" but I plan to return to them when I finish with the current task and make them at least B-class. Your changes are in line with our discussion, well thought-out and well written. However, my feeling is that those articles are not too good at the moment, lacking material and not well planned. The material that is in "SEM pseudotensor" is adequate (though incomplete) for an article on "LL pseudotensor" but is very inadequate, even misleading, under the heading SEM pseudotensor. It completely disregards the fact that there are other SEM pseudotensors, and also the most important property of those quantities - the localisation (or the lack of it) of the pure gravitational energy. Lantonov 06:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've hinted at the localization by pointing out that LL vanishes in an inertial frame -- I'll try to expand that a bit. Unfortunately I know very little about other GR pseudotensors; if I did I would separate out the umbrella "SEM pseudotensor" from the specific examples, which I think is what you are suggesting. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, separating the different pseudotensors from the umbrella SEM pseudo is what I and other people suggested in the discussion of the article. Concerning myself, I know something about the various pseudotensors and have ample though not systematic material about them. Still, I do not feel that right now I have the necessary expertise to plan and thoroughly thrash out the subject. My main interests and knowledge are in approaches to time singularity, particularly the quasi-isotropic and the BKL approaches. Lantonov 09:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

SciAm article

Since you have the actual article, perhaps you could change my "cite web" ref to a cite journal ref? I don't have page number information, etc. No rush or anything. (I realize it's not technically a journal, but the template is just a template.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added the page number. It's in the "News Scan" section of SciAm if you want to add that. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the current reference is sufficient. However, is there a volume or issue number on the cover? (I realize there might not be.) The little pic of the cover they provide is too small for me to tell. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Difference between W and Z bosons and W' and Z' bosons

You removed W' and Z' boson from hypothetical elementary particles on Template:Particles in this edit. According to your edit summary it seems that you have accidentally removed them thinking that they are W and Z bosons, which are not hypothetical. Please notice the difference in usage of apostrophe between W and Z bosons and W' and Z' bosons. Thank you. :-) --antiXt 17:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies. Thanks for the correction. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mitochondrial Eve

I see that you are trying to give it a try. While you are doing that, can you check out comment I just left at Talk:Mitochondrial_Eve#Confused_paragraph? Thanks. Fred Hsu 00:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Species integration nominated for deletion

As someone who has commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article Species integration which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the Talk:Species integration page.

The new nomination/discussion page is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species integration.

Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

disambiguating quantum theory in Noether's theorem

Hi, I just saw that you reverted my disambiguation edit. As a participant in Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, I'd prefer not to have a direct link from a wikipedia mainspace article space article to a disambiguation page. Could the phrase "crucial role in quantum theory" be changed to "crucial role in quantum mechanics and quantum field theory"? Is there any way this could be phrased such that there is no direct link to quantum theory? Thanks, Lisatwo 15:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it Noether's theorem is relevant to all the disambiguation items, so expanding it out would be rather cumbersome. I'd like to leave the link in. Is that going to be a problem?--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it's not a problem at all. Thank you for your time, Lisatwo 19:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert Young (gerontologist)

Perhaps you would be interested in the following "article for deletion." An intelligent opinion from someone informed about both sides of the debate is welcomed. Also note that most articles for deletion close after 5 days, but still no decision has been made after 8 days on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_%28gerontologist%29 74.237.28.5 19:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 20 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Joses. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia - please bear this in mind. Kind regards, Anthøny 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by
adding the text "{{unblock|your reason here}}" below this text, or contact me.

Mary Ramsey Wood (again)

Mr. Price, in regards to the Mary Ramsey Wood claim: please note we have only ONE verified supercentenarian parent-sibling combination in history. Further, in this case there's evidence that Mary Wood was much younger, let alone proof to support one person being age 110.

Please note that citing extreme ages for one's parents is very common in longevity claims/myths. In 1939, a man in Illinois died at '110' but his father lived to '120.' In the Bible, Jacob complained about living to only '147' while his fathers (Abraham, Isaac) lived longer. This is a lot different than Emma Tillman having a documented 108-year-old brother. In this case, the evidence clearly contradicts the story as told.Ryoung122 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, yes I am quite aware of this. It's just that there is more than one interpretation of the evidence, and I think both sides should be presented.--Michael C. Price ^talk 02:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites FAR

Ebionites has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Avi 18:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bohmian position beables

I saw your edit to the Bohm interpretation article, with the sentence "For instance measuring the frequency of a radio signal requires a receiver that measures localized photons" serving as a counterexample. I don't understand this claim. In the end, aren't we looking at the positions of a needle that points to one frequency or another?

This might just be me not understanding, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Although I do work in Bohmian theory, it's only as a summer undergraduate research project. Domenic Denicola 16:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to say delocalized photons. Of course your objection still stands, that we seem to absorb information about the universe in a spatial sense (the usual example is the position of a meter's dial). But when we stop and think a bit more we realise that this isn't always the case. For example, the measurement of colour -- which we can directly observe, of course -- is the measurement of a photon's frequency, which requires that the photon be delocalised, by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In this example the delocalisation is confined to the diameter of a pigment molecule in the retina, instead of an antenna, but the effect is a real one.--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hidden Variables a "no go" zone?

To Michael Price,

You have twice now removed additional information from the entry on hidden variables.

Can you explain to me, why my point about the geometrisation of spacetime is considered invalid.

Steven Rosen has written extensively one this subject, and in his "Science Paradox and the Moebius Principle, he and David Bohm communicated at length. This is referenced.

why is the reference concerning Hugh Everett's position on hidden variables negated.

and why are you deleating information concerning evidence from natural science re Chris Illerts work on Conchology which is adequately referenced.

I find it disconcerting that there is such obvious controls and gatekeeping on science pages.

you quip about the military is negating the obvious control over information that the military orchestrates, and the fact that Many Worlds theory is spawned from the Lambda Group, a DEFENCE CORPS foundation is relevant, as is Wheelers commentary on Everetts research as cited.

The discourse on Bohm is undoubtedly biased against his work, and it is most likely due to the threat of HINDU or EASTERN metaphysics seeming to resolve some of the paradoxes inherent in western thought. I advocate that exists serious problems with ALL religions, including EASTERN and ARYAN and including WESTERN, and NEW AGE.

Many of the issues concern paradox.

Some of the issues that have plagued western science have been RAISED by Rosen's analysis to a higher order epistemological framework, based on the moebius principle. The implications of this research are huge, and should therefore be at least considered in the very pages that should permit further information concerning the serious problems that are determined through geometricisations of spacetime.

The use of language which submits half truths is disturbing.

I have not changed anything on this page but have added to its content relevant material that is well cited.

It is obvious to anyone comparing material from many worlds with hidden variables or Bohms work, that there exists a bias that is determined by its allegiance to the dominant mindset. That hidden variables was considered so important by Everett is undeniably important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.147.127 (talk) 06:43, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

• I shall reply in more detail tomorrow, but briefly your material is mostly controversial original research. What can be sourced may be appropriate for a new article.
• You need to discuss it on the appropriate talk pages to a reach a consensus before added, since it is controversial. Wikipedia is NOT a repository for half-baked conspiracy theories -- and certainly not justification for adding them to scientific articles.

As an example of dubious input: where is the relevance of Lambda Corp being a defence organisation mentioned in the literature (please note WP:RS) in reference to manyworlds? BTW Everett did his work before moving to Lambda. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you create new article(s) for "Chris Illerts work on Conchology which is adequately referenced.", Steve Rosen etc (if they don't already exist). --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your response Michael.

First, I was not fully aware of the discussion protocol, and agree that that is important.

And I agree that wiki is not a repository for HALF BAKED CONSPIRACY THEORIES--and the words HALF BAKED are most important as ANY THEORY THAT PERTAINS TO BE THE TRUTH WHILE OFFERING HALF TRUTHS, or UNPROVABLE THEORIES are the most DANGEROUS THEORY, indeed in all fields be it Science or Religion, the FILTER through which the world is viewed be it a mind conditioned to believe a chain of laws as truths, or a dogma designed to constrain free thought, or an hierarchical system based on a culture of dominance (patriarch, sovereign monarch, "divinely" ordained rights, royal charters etc) that rely on the separation between the general population and the governing elite where the military stands in the field between, and ALL intelligence is gathered- a system that is as old as history itself, whatever the permutations of governance and struggle for global dominion has looked like in the past or looks like now- again an ancient agenda, as is the agenda for AI and military supremacy; or an institutional system that is designed to maintain fragmentation through specialisation, and a steering of research through foundations funded by the multinational co-oporations which themselves are instruments of intelligence gathering- IT IS NAIVE TO PRESUME THAT IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY the AUTHORISED SCIENCE DESIGNED FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION WOULD BE ORGANISED IN SUCH A WAY THAT DID NOT PRESERVE the ECONOMIC, SOCIAL and RELIGIOUS FOUNDATION of the culture in question.

Science is political.

David Bohm's ontological theory is the OPPOSITE of the many worlds theory, and in expanding the notion of causation itself, reintroducing the WHOLISM of PLATO which requires a higherorder and higherdimensional epistemological framework of non dual duality- was aligned with indigenous and Eastern philosophical traditions as THEY EMBRACED PARADOX AS FOUNDATIONAL to reality (complementary superposition of opposites rather than separation of opposites as discrete entities and hence a BASE ONE WHOLE THAT IS DUAL rather than base 2logic) and was the FOUNDATION for the emergent NEW PARADIGM that has not been ALLOWED TO GROUND, due it being in concert with most mindsets EXCEPT THE DOMINANT MINDSET, and through the assistance of the QUAGMIRE of post modernist thought- EXTREME and OPPOSITE PERSPECTIVES DRIVEN by the SEEMING fallibility and POWER of science however in retrospect, the power of the elite to resist the growth of certain memes, until it can SPIN a new story that will expand on the NATURE OF REALITY in a way that does not engender TOO MUCH DAMAGE TO THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE ITSELF, and in doing so USE CULTURAL RELATIVITY as the LEVER rather than the ALARM THAT THERE WERE SERIOUS FLAWS IN THE WHOLE BUILDING OF SCIENCE- FLAWS THAT REVEAL A SCIENCE MUCH CLOSER TO UNVEILING THE ULTIMATE TRUTH IN THE LATE 1800's than is realised- (Higherdimensional Mathematics, electromagnetism and QUATERNIONS, FELIX KLEIN and TOPOLOGICAL resolution to paradox, Sophus LIE and the lineage from here to extremely sophisticated cutting edge science that is often the focus of EXTREME and UNSCIENTIFIC ABUSE of SKEPTICISM- PEAK OIL??????? This is a smoke screen.

Indigenous world views did not develop technologies, NOT because they were more primitive, but due to the MINDSET OF WHOLENESS and INTERCONNECTIVITY. There is no allegiance to a man made boundary (nation state and socisal contract) when one has a mindset of WHOLENESS- and no such thing as an ALIEN.

SO if science is not POLITICAL what is.

HAving said all that it is important that one of the most influential scientist who developed Many WOrlds, Hugh EVERETT, used HIDDEN VARIABLES as the only means to resolve OBJECTIVE PROBABILITIES.

Hidden Variables is WHERE AN UNDERSTANDING OF ONTOLOGY ITSELF IS EMBEDDED

hence the rise of HOLOGRAPHIC PARADIGM - and SERIOUS CRITIQUE AGAINST THE COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION- in the many worlds theory a most SIMPLIFIED VIEW OF HOLOGRAPHIC EMBEDDEDNESS as described by M KAKU and numerous others as the RUSSIAN DOLL notion- a HALF TRUTH that negates the complexity of the micro macro subject object individual and whole local and global relationships.

HOWever, as the UN endorses the HEISENBURGIAN PERSPECTIVE, as the UNDENIABLE TRUTH, as if the TRUTH IS RESOLVED, and has done so since the 50's and with it maintained the SIMPLIFIED POSSIBLE SHAPES OF SPACE (+,-, and +-)that are contested by NUMEROUS THEORIES INCLUDING MANY WORLDS THEORY (superstrings and branes) and the MILLENIUM AGENDA requires SUBMISSION of ALL CULTURAL MINDSETs even though they are arguably of a higherorder epistemological base and are not DOMINATOR MODELS, to the dominant mindset- a tactic which PRESERVES BUSINESS AS USUAL--

THIS IS NOT HALF BAKED CONSPIRACY THEORY- this is just about as full term as it gets, and there is a whole lot more.

Science is POLITICAL

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER

ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE

GODS- YHWH included- have been CREATED simply by MEN HAVING KNOWLEDGE and USING IT AGAINST OTHERS to confound them and control them

The DAWKINS RAVE AGAINST RELIGION is harmful as it FAILS TO POINT OUT THAT THE BIBILE ITSELF REVEALS THE TRUTH OF THE HOODWINKING OF ALL AS A COLONISATION OF THE MIND- read Josuah, know there was an eclipse or predictable comet stike at ALL serious events of the old testament-know that he was a man with knowledge and power and no god, he was a RANDI MAGICIAN nothing more- This is the LIE that is NECESSARY to be preserved , as it preservs the EXPLOITATION OF ALL AS RESOURCE- including humans-

The future of this Planet depends on SCIENCE REVEAL THE WHOLE TRUTH, and not HALF TRUTHS which lead to confusion and no coherence.

Do what you wish to this site, WIKIPEDIA IS THE AUTHORISED VERSION, and if this is known - (in Australia it is public knowledge that the DOD controls much of WIKI) then it does not take much to unravel the mess and reveal the truth behind the BIASED PERSUASIONS that you and your colleagues are constantly engaged in.

LANGUAGE is POWERFUL and SUBTLE tenses - one word against another- can create whole new doorways- this is known too. This is the politics of language, everything is political when the WORLD IS DOMINANT BY ONE SUPERPOWER and a COALITION of ANGLOPHILES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.2.100 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites cleanup of content and sources

Would you be willing to work consensually with other editors to address the content and source disputes on the Ebionites article? I would like to avoid having the article delisted from Featured Article status during FAR if possible. My specific concerns are over misleading statements and sources in the History and Essenes sections of the article, which have been tagged for some time now. Ovadyah 17:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have always sought consensus. So, yes, no problem. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Since our efforts to achieve consensus on these issues have been largely unsuccessful in the past, would you be willing to accept formal mediation? Ovadyah 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation by Alec, perhaps -- as long as it is binding. Although the first thing any mediator is likely to ask is for people to try to work together. Off for a few days, anyway. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been almost a month since I posted a request for comment to Alec's user page (Aug. 8th), so I would not look to him as an RFC. BTW, even formal mediation is never binding. It's purpose is to encourage consensus. I am not talking about informal mediation. I am asking if you are willing to participate in a formal mediation process guided by a member of the Mediation Committee. Ovadyah 22:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, when I know what that entails. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I filed a formal request for mediation. You can read the procedure and familiarize yourself with what it entails. If you agree to participate in the mediation process, you will be contacted by the mediator. Ovadyah 23:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am off for a week in an about a hour. So things will have to be resumed later. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you have returned to active editing. Do you intend to participate in formal mediation on the Ebionites article? Three editors and the mediator are waiting for an answer. Ovadyah 12:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibility, as i earlier stated.--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to mediation. The request for mediation has been accepted. Ovadyah 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

True mass

I've noticed that you edit some of the same articles I edit/watch, and I'd like you to invite you to improve on a new article I started on true mass. I started it in response to the term being used on the definition of planet article without any mention of what it meant. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't help much there, I'm afraid: I've never heard of the term, but I'll look in as it progresses. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I kept clobbering your edits. I'm done with Moore's Law now. ---- CharlesGillingham 20:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation - Ebionites

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebionites, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am off for a week in an about a hour. So things will have to be resumed later. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Decoherence, David Bohm and MWI

Dear Micheal Price

can you explain to me why the entries concerning David Bohm diminish the value of his theories yet as is seen in the entry concerning decoherence as follows- Bohm's mechanics and his hidden variable theory form much of the basis of MWI and yet in the writing of Michio Kaku eg Parallel worlds, Bohm is not mentioned at all.

"Before an understanding of decoherence was developed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics treated wavefunction collapse as a fundamental, a priori process. Decoherence provides an explanatory mechanism for the appearance of wavefunction collapse and was first developed by David Bohm in 1952 who applied it to Louis DeBroglie's pilot wave theory, producing Bohmian mechanics[3][4], the first successful hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics. Decoherence was then used by Hugh Everett in 1957 to form the core of his many-worlds interpretation[5] . However decoherence was largely[6] ignored for many years, and not until the 1980s [7] [8]/90s did decoherent-based explanations of the appearance of wavefunction collapse become popular, with the greater acceptance of the use of reduced density matrices[2]. The range of decoherent interpretations have subsequently been extended around the idea, such as consistent histories. Some versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation have been rebranded to include decoherence."

Is it due to his work leading to nil potent algebras, and the work of Sophus Lie a collegue of Felix Klein, which forms part of the basis of Ruggero Santilli's theory of hadronic science and isoeuclidean mathematics which is in wikipedia the subject of serious attack and was one of the first major assaults unleashed by the SKEPTICS pages which have since been removed?

It seems that the MWI is pitched AGAINST Bohm's ontological science, yet quantum computing relies on a holographic theory that emerged from Bohmian mechanics, indeed was named by Bohm and Carl Pribram independently.

In order to realise some COHERENCE in SCIENCE rather than the gross relativity and hence presumed fallibility of science (Horganism) which is constantly raised in order to resist changing attitudes to such problems as climate change for example, and the ethical use of technologies (conflicting reports, conflicting interpretations etc)it seems important that entries concerning Bohm are carefully considered. As they stand there is sense of half truth about them. while it may be true to say MOST scientist do not agree with this, it is equally true to say that there WAS an emerging paradigm focussed about Bohms work which seems to have been redirected into a completely different theoretical posturing that ultimate EXCLUDES bohm's theories.

If you cannot answer this, can you point to some forum where such questions may be asked with relevance to the ongoing efforts through Wikipedia to reinvest science not as a mere material science, but as a true physics of ultimate reality which I believe is possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.146.51 (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote (most of/all) the paragraph you're quoting. I mentioned Bohm's early work on decoherence (although it wasn't called that at the times) from my reading of Bohm's and Everett's papers. I guess that no one else has made the same observation simply because they are not interested -- the most memorable aspect of Bohm's approach is the particle buffeted around by the "quantum potential", so naturally people have focussed on that. With Everett of course it is the "parallel universes" that grab the attention. That and the fact that most people don't understand what either Bohm or Everett were saying. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not put back the MegaSociety article?

Hi!

I read your MegaSociety article. Why don't you put it back where it belongs? It seems to have been a while since it was deleted, so maybe it's time to let it have another go... Algotr 23:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Have to be someone else that does that -- I've no doubt I would be accused of having a conflict of interest (nonsensical, I know, but it happened before). Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't work well in areas that arouse the ire of the herd.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebionites. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

MichaelCPrice's vandalism of solar wind article

MichaelCPrice, please defend your edits to the solar wind article in the talk pages. As I noted in my changes to the article, it is widely-established that to accelerate charged particles, you apply an electric field in the opposite direction. This is a firmly-grounded principle of particle physics and is verified routinely in laboratory experiments all over the world and it is the only known way to accelerate charged particles. If you are capable, please try to defend your removal of this material from the article in the talk pages. In the future, try not to be so reckless with your reverts. Your edit summary says "fringe material" and "gravity bending light". Nothing I changed in the article makes any reference to anything "fringe" or to gravity affecting light. Please re-read my changes, because it's clear you didn't understand them. SteakNotShake 15:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove a mention of escaping "the sun's gravity "? If you insist on pushing garbage on various pages the bar will be lowered for your other edits. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites

There is a proposal now to pursue community enforcable mediation on the Ebionites article. Please indicate whether such would be agreeable to you. Thank you. John Carter 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Again it would depend on the scope of the mediation, which would have to include the issue of misconduct, and especially the repeated assumption of bad faith and avoidance of substantive debate by editors. Moot since Ovadyah would not agree. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he already more or less did, until he recently indicated that he was going on a break for some time. I have contacted him and asked if he would send me an e-mail. Also, please note that the last one failed because you would not agree. To date, I think he has shown himself willing to be open to mediation. However, if you decide that you would not be willing to do so, thus ruling out the possibility of mediation, ArbCom can be contacted and they do not require having people agree to their involvement. I would prefer not having to go that far, however. John Carter 21:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My comment about Ovadyah was made in the light of his "departure". And yes, I withdrew from a mediation where my issues were all rejected without discussion. I can't see why anyone is surprised at that. Go right ahead and contact ArbCom if you feel that's appropriate. Personally I would prefer just reasoned debated on the talk page, but that's your call. --Michael C. Price ^talk 03:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, it might save you some effort if you review the results of the previous ArbComm (referred to at the start of the Ebionite talk page), which I had no issues with at all. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate to me the exact link to the ArbCom discussion to which you are referring. I found no reference to one. There is a profound difference between Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, commonly abbreviated ArbCom, and the RfC archived in the dispute page. If you are unaware of the differences between the two, I think you might be well advised to become familiar with them. John Carter 14:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No exact link to hand, but Arbcom is how other editors referred to it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Ebionites

An administrator has reviewed your additions on the Ebionites article, and has found your conduct to be significantly less than ideal. He has, based on your additions and your source citations, concluded, and I quote, "You have forged the evidence, and fobbed it onto Eisenman, with a combination of circular methodology, illegal synthesis, misattribution, and misinterpretation." This raises potentially very serious questions regarding your conduct and/or judgement. If you have any defense to this conclusion, I believe you would be well served by presenting it, presumably on that page. Oh, and, by the way, that same admin is the person who you personally attacked when you referred to the "demented ravings of someone who thinks that scholars can't be vegetarians". I do believe that at the very least a formal apology for this extremely objectionable, and I believe deliberately misrepresenting comment, is very much in order.John Carter 23:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not a misleading comment. N said: "scholarship has no place for a vegetarian Keith Akers" --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is yet again another attempt on your part to purposefully misconstrue the words of others. And your attempt to try to tell others what you believe are the few points you will allow them to discuss was reverted. If you wish to see that the material regarding John the Baptist and other unsubstantiated speculation of academics be included in the article, then I believe, as the person seeking the inclusion of such material, by policy it is incumbent upon you to find a specific source which indicates that such a disproportionate amount of attention be placed on what is basically a completely unsubstantiated hypothesis. Given the rather unique nature of this matter, I believe any reasonable party would think that simply repeating WP:NPOV, and in the process completely ignoring, WP:Undue weight, will not be enough. On that basis, I believe that the obligation is yours to justify why this [[WP:Fringe theories|fringe theory] should receive as much attention as it does. Should you not do so, I believe that I would be completely justified to demand just as much attention be given to any and all other similarly hypothesized theories. And, in all honesty, if the article is to lose FA status on the basis of the largely conjectural additions which have already been added to it, and which you insist on keeping, there really wouldn't be any reason not to include them, would there? John Carter 22:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're dodging the issue of why N included the adjective "vegetarian". I see you're still claiming that Tabor er al are fringe, despite dab's judgment to the contrary. As for undue weight I already explained that this is addressed by Tabor's notability. The claim that the application of such fair-minded inclusion criteria (which are what Wikipolicy requires) would swamp the article is absurd: there are not that many qualified authorities on the Ebionites in existence. Finally the use of "purposefully misconstrue" indicates that you're still are assuming bad faith. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your above statement also clearly and explicitly does nothing to address another requirement of wikipedia, that any content be given only appropriate weight, as per WP:Undue weight. And I think under the circumstances that the word "vegetarian" was included to indicate that the party involved has explicit biases and does not necessarily qualify as a reliable source. I also personally see your insistence on this point as once again attempting to focus on the behavior of others, and thus try to avoid directly responding to the questions regarding your own conduct. In fact, your focusing on this point to the exclusion f the rest of the questions raised at the same time I believe is yet another indication of your refusal to pay attention to the substantive comments made, and instead insist on once again trying to derail conversaion so as to avoid directly responding to the substantive points made. You have never once that I have seen addressed this particular matter of undue weight, which basically forces those who disagree with you to conclude that you are either incapable of understanding its significance, or are intentionally ignoring it. There is fundamentally not a lot of difference in terms of how those two cases should be handled. If you are even aware of the requirements of undue weight, something you have honestly never demonstrated to date, it would greatly help your case to at least directly address why you think that those particular policy rules are being followed. Again, to date, you have seemingly completely and utterly refused to respond to any attempt to get you to address those matters. It is hard to assume good faith of someone who refuses to directly respond to questions asked of him repeatedly. If you were to actually demonstrate good faith by doing so, it might be possible to assume that you are acting in good faith. However, as long as you continue to completely ignore a question which seems to have a strong concensus of all editors but yourself as being relevant to the subject, there can be no assumption that your flat refusal to address that issue even remotely qualifies as acting in good faith. I don't think anyone wants to not assume good faith of anybody. But strident, intransigent refusal to address concerns raised, and repeated attempts to sidetrack such conversations, make such conclusions inevitable. John Carter 15:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have frequently addressed the undue weight issue: Tabor's views are notable (his "Jesus Dynasty" is a best seller, he is consulted often by documentary makes) ergo his views need reporting here, and not just mentioned in passing. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet another direct evasion above. You used the phrase "undue weight" once, and then directly went to "notability". The two are not even remotely identical, although you seem to think, as per your statement above, that they are literally interchangable. Do you understand that the two terms are different, I wonder, or are you simply refusing to face that possibility? John Carter 21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* of course they are not interchangeable. I never said nor implied they were. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A conclusion no person who read the above interchange would come to, based on your apparent view that the two are equal. I am beginning to wonder if you are capable of perceiving the difference between the two, though. And if you can, then your statement could be taken as yet another attempt to try to avoid directly responding to a direct question by yet another attempt at dodging the issue or "rephrasing" the question, or whatever other terms you use to try to avoid directly responding to material, relevant questions. In neither circumstance, though, do you come out giving the impression of someone who can be trusted, either to understand something or because of an absolute unwillingness to address salient points. John Carter 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is silly. You wonder if I understand whether notability and undue weight are identical / interchangeable, I say no, they are not and somehow I am accused of continued evasion. If A justifies B, that does not mean A=B, okay?????? --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this is based on your own apparent unwillingness or inability to see the difference, or indicate that you do accurately perceive the difference. It is not now, and never has been, the case that anything that does deserve to be covered in wikipedia as per notability rules deserves to be covered at length in the "central article" on a given topic. Were that the case, the article on the United States would probably be in the neighborhood of millions of pages. While these "theories" could easily be included in the articles on the books themselves, there is a very real question whether they deserve to be covered at the existing length in the main article, particularly as there has been no particular evidence ever put forward by you or anyone else that they are relevant to the subject that the amount of article "space" they currently have would indicate. I agree, your refusal to even apparently recognize the difference between what you said above, and what I and pretty much everyone else has said elsewhere, which is more or less what I summarized above, could be seen as being "silly". But I don't think that if that is the case that it is I or the others who disagree with you who are being "silly". John Carter 22:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you now have shifted to a new argument: categorisation. Would not the same argument also apply to the Jewish view of Ebionites, the Islamic view, the Catholic view etc, namely that they deserve their own separate articles? Instead they have subsections in the central article.; BTW you may not know that I advocated a "Tabor"-subsection awhile back, but this was rejected.--Michael C. Price ^talk 22:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No actually, that was the argument we were always making, although you have once again tried to shift the argument yourself, and at the same time seemingly placed these two scholars on the same level as the entire Islamic or Catholic culture over the centuries. Are you so completely incapable of perceiving the concept of proportionality, or due weight, that you cannot perceive the differences there? John Carter 22:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If Tabor (et al) was (were) the only one(s) who ever analysed the concept of Jesus as a non-divine but not necessarily false prophet you might have a point, but his work builds on the scholarship of others.--Michael C. Price ^talk 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites

Please note that a request for Arbitration from the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee regarding the above article has been filed here, in which you are named as a party. John Carter 16:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Required quotations for Ebionites article

You have clearly and explicitly failed to do what was indicated as required for the content of the above article which has been challenged to remain in place. I have therefor placed a {{page number}} in the location of every quote required for certain citations and content to remain in place. As per earlier conversation, and per the rules of WP:V, these quotations are required in cases where information is challenged. I have also added a new section to the Ebionites talk page at Talk:Ebionites#Insufficient notations describing the placement of these templates. Once again, please note that what is being requested is not only the page numbers, but the exact quotation which is being used as the basis for the included citations and content. As noted in the new section, considering you had been told that this content was considered dubious some time ago, and have consistently failed to do what is required as per WP:V, any citations which are not adequately sourced within one week will be removed, as will the content which those citations source. Thank you. John Carter 23:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Quantum Insomnia

That was a joke. I thought you were going to erase it. But it's a serious joke, because it is not clear how to count conscious paths. Even if you awaken later, why didn't your conciousness "veer off" into the 'still awake' path? These questions are thorny, and sort of philosophical. I thought it would be nice to insert some levity into this somber discussion of killing yourself. You don't have to kill yourself to make your consciousness stop for a while.Likebox 15:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawking_radiation&diff=163603451&oldid=163592521

What's it mean that black holes have "thermal properties"? They give off heat?

PS: You should archive your talk page. William Ortiz 17:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It means they radiate like black bodies with a temperature.--Michael C. Price ^talk 12:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee

A member of the Arbitration Committee has indicated that he would be interested in seeing some input on you regarding the matter before them in his edit summary here. You may wish to provide some commentary regarding the matter as indicated. John Carter 23:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee found that MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in sustained edit-warring and is subject to an editing restriction for one year, he is limited to one revert per page per week and must discuss any content changes on the article's talk page. Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 04:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to Hear

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ebionites#Statement_by_MichaelCPrice

It seems the problem is that you are a few orders of magnitude more intelligent than the masses, and on Wikipedia, masses win.Ryoung122 06:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of Louises. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, those idiots who insist that policy be followed are so annoying, aren't they? :) John Carter 14:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean me? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The people who insist that policy be followed are ArbCom. Who did they say didn't act according to policy? By the way, as indicated below, you are welcome to add comment as to why you think your Ebionites draft should be kept, if you can think of any good reason to do so. Sorry I'm too busy to chat, though. There seem to have been several articles which may have placed too much emphasis on certain "fringe theories". John Carter 14:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom is not infallible, as you've demonstrated. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And, as your own blind denial of your own repeated failures to abide by policy has clearly demonstrated, neither are you. Unfortunately, your ego seems to possibly be too big for you to ever even consider that possibility. John Carter 15:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the usual ad hominems. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

The page User:MichaelCPrice/mega2 is being considered for deletion in accord with wikipedia policy. Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MichaelCPrice/mega2. Thank you. John Carter 15:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting on Tachyon

As you know you are on an editing restriction from the Arbitration Committee. Your edit to Tachyon here at 10:50 on 12 November (UTC) is a revert, as is this edit of 12:11 on 13 November (UTC). You are only supposed to have one revert per week, and you do not seem to have discussed and explained these changes on Talk:Tachyon. Sam Blacketer 14:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The first edit was not a revert: I added to the previous content to clarify and address the stated concerns (and I subsequently added two references to the new text). 2nd edit was a response to abusive anon editor. This issue has been extensively discussed by myself and others and a consensus was reached. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That the first edit was indeed a revert is made obvious by the fact that you removed words which were only added in the edit immediately preceding. Previous talk page discussion may have taken place, but you should expect to provide a full talk page explanation if you want to establish that you are not in breach of the revert parole. An abusive editor may still be making a reasonable edit, and the only exception is 'obvious vandalism' - make sure that you only revert vandalism which is obvious even to someone unfamiliar with the field. I'm just giving you a warning that these sort of things are likely to be looked at as breaches of your revert parole unless you give clear explanations. Sam Blacketer 00:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? "That the first edit was indeed a revert is made obvious by the fact that you removed words...." I didn't remove any text; as I said, I added text and clarified the explanation. And immediately afterwards added refs. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You are right to the extent that it was you adding content which had been removed by the immediately previous edit. I'm sorry for not being clear but it was a revert. Sam Blacketer 19:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As you requested

To refer to anyone as "hysterical", particularly in a judgemental manner as you do, is I believe something which any reasonable editor would describe as being a clear and explicit violation of the official policy of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I have not yet reported these comments, giving you the benefit of the doubt, even against my better judgement, given your clear history of misconduct in this regard. You do seem to have a remarkable ability to justify such statements of clearly unsupported insults in your mind, despite the fact that policy does not recognize such differentiations. Frankly, your regular abuse of other editors is contemptible. Please cease doing so, or I or some other party will be forced to take action. John Carter 15:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is as least as bad to accuse some one of fraud.--Michael C. Price ^talk 15:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant to the current situations, and frankly that was basically demonstrated when you said "all" the page numbers you gave said the same thing, which is clearly unlikely in and of itself, and then were found to have had not a single one even remotely say what you had said they "all" said. The fact that you had been given specific indications on this page itself that what was being requested was the specific quotes, which you arrogantly refused to give, very likely yet another demonstration of your failure to abide by even minimal standards of conduct, is yet another point. However, I do believe that any reasonable party would describe your misstatement of what was said as "fraudulent misrepresentation", which is virtually synonomous with fraud. There is really no question that you did indulge in such fraudulent misrepresentation, so use of a virtual synonym is not something inherently objectionable.

I'm sorry your conduct got you into the situation you are now in. However, I believe any reasonable adult would acknowledge that, however blinded by your own opinion of yourself you might be, several independent parties reviewed the evidence presented, which as my own evidence was incomplete was not all the evidence available, and placed you on probation on the basis of the clear evidence of misconduct presented therein. Given your history of violation of standards of conduct in several ways, it is reasonable to assume that people will follow you to see if the problematic conduct continues. In fact, whether you know it or not, I was drawn to the tachyons page by a complaint filed against you by Ovadyah on the WP:ANI page. I acknowledge that this might be a subject about which you can put facts before your own opinions, which you seemingly could not on subject of religion, which is why I tried to ensure that you not engage in conduct which could result in a complaint and/or block. However, I think you should know that there is a specific page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement to place further sanctions, and, yes, Ovadyah reported you there as well. I personally have no objections to seeing you edit articles where you seem to have a solid, non-partisan background. However, you seem to continue to indulge in your problematic behavior.

Please try to realize that no one really has it "in for you", whatever you might think. We want the content to meet the requirements of content in wikipedia. If you can and are willing to improve content according to those requirements, well and good. If you are not, or if you violate the terms of your probation, I imagine that comparatively few admins would cut you much slack. Try to avoid violating any policies, and you'll probably be left alone. But any indication of misconduct might well be enough to block you again, and I don't think anyone wants to see that happen if it can be avoided. If you can cease holding grudges against others, and desist in making snide comments about others based on the previous case, I imagine others will as well. If you persist, then expect the same in return. John Carter 15:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. In fact, Ovadyah has recently adjusted his comments on the WP:ANI page to take into account your recent insults and attacks. John Carter 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to laugh at "If you can cease holding grudges against others, and desist in making snide comments about others based on the previous case" since that seems to be exactly what you're doing. As for being "found" to have cooked up fraudulent citations, I would remind you that I was not found guilty of any such thing. It's a shame that Arbcomm didn't judge source content, but they didn't. Instead they were swayed by the hysterical mob psychology that Ovadyah and others contributed to stoking up and ignored the long-standing practice of the assumption bad faith which Ovadyah, Loremaster (and more lately you) indulged in. This made rational debate impossible. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Tachyon

You know, if you persist in these petty little snide comments of yours, there really won't be any reason to not let you at least potentially face consequences of your actions, right? If you could be bothered to read what I said above, you'd note that I'm trying to keep you from facing further sanctions. If this is the way you respond to people who are trying to keep you from trouble, simply because of pure unthinking emotionalism on your part, there's no reason for anyone to make any effort to keep you from further consequences. John Carter 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote. I note that if I accused you of "pure unthinking emotionalism" that you would no doubt accuse me of violation of WP:NPA. But there we are, people are always blind to their own faults. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to file a complaint then. And regarding people being blind to their own faults, you still seemingly think that your actions were all completely above board, and that it was some sort of grand conspiracy that got you where you are. I doubt many people would know more about the subject of being blind to their own faults. John Carter 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The "grand conspiracy" sounds like your fertile imagination at work. Projection. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And I note that once again you have completely refused to respond to any points made in this thread, or the one above, and instead made comments regarding others. Here is a simple, direct question which I pose to you: Why in the world, given your "standard of behavior", should anyone make any effort to assist you here? I look forward to a clear, direct response, if you are in fact even capable of doing that, which does not seem to be even remotely indicated by any available evidence. John Carter 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you recognise a loaded question? --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I also note once again that you are somehow apparently constitutionally incapable of directly responding to a question. I guess at this point I have to take your answer above as a "No" to my question, and from this point forward I will act on the basis of your apparent wishes to not have any help to avoid any further consequences for your current actions. John Carter 22:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If it is a loaded question, don't expect a response. Your choice. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Quantum

Hi MichaelCPrice, I notice you have made significant contributions to Template:Quantum. Over time the template has become very large and I believe this is part of the reason that so few of the articles listed include the template. I have created a compact version which you can see at Template_talk:Quantum#Compact_template. I would be interested to get your feedback on this. --DJIndica (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

To Michael Price, I am Ron Maimon. About 15 years ago, I got into an argument online with you over whether boundary terms in the action show up in Feynman diagrams. I argued no, because the plane wave states conserve momentum, and the momentum laws make any topological vertex give zero strength at any order of momentum space perturbation theory. You insisted that yes, so long as the Feynman diagrams are defined for a finite region, the topological terms show up. I kept on insisting too, because I couldn't make sense of the finite region condition, and I finally concluded that you had some hidden agenda that made you refuse to concede.

I now understand your agenda, and I want to say I'm sorry I was so thick. I can see now that particles can be defined either as plane wave states, or in locally by a path-integral that reproduces the quadratic Lagrangian of the fields, so that Feynman diagrams in localized regions can include interactions produced by topological terms, and this is not in contradiction with the fact that the effects vanish in the plane wave limit. At the time, I still subscribed to the Wignerian idea that particles were global constructs, and could not account for local tangled-up-field effects. probably due to the brain-damaging effects of too much formal education.

Just to let you know that I admit that I was wrong.Likebox (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ron,

thanks for the message. Yes, I remember the fruitful discussions we used to have over at sci.physics. I had noticed Likebox's contributions at some of the mathematical articles but not realised who you were. Glad to see you have maintained your interest in physics. Recently I've been getting back into it again.

It always disturbed me that many expositions of the Feynman rules require the assumption of infinite space-time to enable easy switching between configuration and momentum pictures. I think that Green's reduction formulae work over finite domains as well, and this was what I was trying to explain (poorly, no doubt). Anyway, good to see that we are now in agreement.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 12:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Iconic equation of QM

Hello Michael,

I initially instigated the change from the eigenstate equation (often called the TISE) to the dynamical equation, a while back. There was a small discussion regarding it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Quantum_mechanics#Compact_template, in which you've participated, but much later (and to an earlier part of the discussion). Instead of bloating the thread (and adding to any confusion), perhaps we could discuss it here.

My initial reasons for changing it were that the TISE is simply an eigenvalue equation. It is not really that interesting: the only reason it might be is because the operator in that equation is the same one that generates infinitesimal time evolution (which itself is a consequence of the TDSE, in fact this statement is almost equivalent to the TDSE). Therefore if the system is in an eigenstate of that operator, the eigenvalues are constant over time. In that regard, I viewed the TDSE to be far more general and important than the TISE.

An objection you raise in the thread is with the lack of generality of the equation: why the Schrodinger equation and not the Dirac/Proca etc. you say. However, the Schrodinger equation with the Hamiltonian left unspecified is indeed general. The Dirac equation is really the specification of a specific Hamiltonian (the EM Hamiltonian) and applied to a specific kind of state (i.e. the Dirac spinor). The Proca equation is a specific Hamiltonian acting on vectors. QED is a specific Hamiltonian acting on a state (which is usually represented in the Fock space, e.g the vacuum state |0>).

I personally object to the equation you have replaced the TDSE with. The uncertainty equation is really a result of the non-zero commutator between the operators. And so the commutator may be seen as more fundamental, in my opinion, since that boils down the essence of the theory without recourse to a specific system. If we choose to take this route, we may end up discussing which is more fundamental, the (anti-)commutators of position and momentum fields or the commutators position and momentum operators. We may also end up discussing the importance of the commutation relation (and resulting uncertainty principle) of the Pauli spin operators. We may then decide that spin-1/2 particles aren't general enough... Perhaps we should start looking at the generators of the Poincaré algebra, since it is from there we get the commutation relations of the operators, and hence the associated uncertainty principles in the variances of the observables.

It appears to me, that the generality of the TISE, which applies to every system, deserves the spot more than the uncertainty relation between position and momentum of a single quantum particle. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.

--Masud (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The technical points you make are true, although I hesitate to call it the Schrodinger equation in the form presented; wasn't the equation Schrodinger presented the world with the one with the explicit form for the Hamiltonian? (If it wasn't, the explicit form is certainly how it is taught in colleges today.) But the issue is really one of notability and accessibility. Heisenberg's UP is vastly more famous (more iconic, if you like), and is more accessible to the general public. If we start putting generators of various transforms up as the lead on the template then I think we are going to lose most the audience straight away.--Michael C. Price ^talk 02:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek about commutators of generators, and it wasn't an entirely serious suggestion. Surely the equation used in the template is not about what's more recognisable to the interested reader - they can use the template title etc. for recognition. Surely, to do the subject any kind of justice, we should use the most general set of symbols possible? In any case, isn't the choice up for debate, as opposed to a unilateral edit?

--Masud (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think the HUP is more iconic and therefore fits the bill better than the other suggestions; it's eye catching in a way that the various forms of the "SEQ" are not, and I do think that that is a relevant point. (For the same reason I replaced the KG equation on the QFT template with a Feynman diagram). Yes to your last point, which is why we should really be debating the subject on the template talk page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The template talk page attracts all sorts of uninformed opinion. --Masud (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hawking radiation protection

Semi-protected for now. I happen to have been on; in the future, you will likely get a faster response at WP:RFPP. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of people who have disappeared

An editor has nominated List of people who have disappeared, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have disappeared and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Michael thanks for the reccomendation, other recommendations I got were very expensive and hard to find. I appreciate it :-) 11341134a (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contributions to Chaotic inflation page

Hi Michael,

Glad to see I'm not alone in contributing to the article on Chaotic Inflation theory. It would be nice to know what section you'll be working on, so our edits don't collide. It looks like that hasn't happened yet, but we came close to trying to save edits on the opening paragraph at the same moment. I'd rather hang back a bit, if I know you'll be actively contributing and improving the page, but I've begun a systematic clean-up of this topic. I'm going top to bottom, and I intend to make everything like a proper encyclopedia entry. I have a pretty thorough knowledge of the subject, so I could go on like a freight train, but I don't want to bump heads.

So it would be nice to agree on who is editing what section first, and we can do that on the discussion page for that topic. At some point, we'll have to agree on a tone, or style for the article, we can both live with (if we're both editing that page). What was there when I adopted the topic was too contentious, and not so readable or thorough. We also have to agree on a consistent style for references, as it appears you have obliterated some of the info I put in for Guth article Ref, by following a different convention or syntax.

Let's find ways to cooperate, rather than competing over who can complete their edits the fastest. I can just move to another section, for now, but I wanted the opening paragraph to be a detailed and unifying overview of the subject. Making a distinction between Chaotic and Eternal inflation, right off the bat, seems divisive. I don't think it would fly on the Wiki, to split this topic into two entries, right now. Instead, we should make this topic a really good article, then make it two when there is too much material for one entry. Perhaps we can make the distinction between the various offshoot theories further down the page.

I want to make the process work, and the article better. Please work with me.

JonathanD (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan,

it's probably best if you go ahead and do your stuff -- I feel a bit off colour / under the weather at the moment, and probably will not be up to any sustained activity for the next month or so.

BTW please don't feel that I was in any way "competing" with you -- I just saw that the article had been updated and felt moved to continue the process.

PS whilst you're around, do you understand Guth's objection to past eternal inflation? It makes no sense to me (and I tried discussing it with him and got nowhere). The past-incomplete geodesics he complains of seem to be an artifact of the red-shift induced in the de-Broglie wavelength (or blue-shift if we look back in time), and without physical significance. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

European windstorm

FYI Aatomic1 (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI 1703: The worst storm in British history --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

States

• It remains difficult to directly compare the ferocity of 1703 with other storms that have delivered havoc across the UK, such as that of 1987

Aatomic1 (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Which does not disprove the assertion. Look at the title.--Michael C. Price ^talk 10:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Precisely - it is an assertion not a verifiable fact. Aatomic1 (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not interested in "facts", only what is reported. See WP:OR, WP:RS --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:RS points to Wikipedia:Check your facts- Have you checked yours?Aatomic1 (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiki-"Facts" are what is reported in the various media. You know that. Stop pretending otherwise. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR This is your argument - not what has been reported. Lose the ad-hominems and stick to the facts. Aatomic1 (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, both the refs support the claim as stated. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Four-current, continuity equation

Hi Michael,

The section on the four-current in Continuity equation has a definition in terms of charge density and current density, and the links clearly imply this is electric charge and electric current, not general charge/current. The same thing is true at Four-current itself: There's a parenthetical in the first sentence that says it applies to "any conventional current density", but then a definition which is unambiguously electric. I'm not sure what the best approach is here: For example, it seems like overkill to start a separate article for "Electric four-current". Perhaps in Four-current, the bulk of the article could be siphoned into a section called "Electric four-current", and then an extra section could be appended after that on how you can define and use a "four-current" for any other locally-conserved quantity.

Sound okay? --Steve (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've generalised four-current and current density. Instead of linking solely to electric charge they now point to charge (physics) as well. Hopefully that's enough for the present? --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, enough for the present :-) --Steve (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Precise dates

Hi Michael, I won't quibble with you about the fact that you changed "mid1950s" back to "1955", it's not worth it. I am just surprised that you with your scientific background can't see, given the circumstances, that in this case "mid1950s" may actually be more precise than "1955". Are you sure, for example, that the Saga writer actually spoke with Buster about all the events that he wrote about. So many articles are cobbled together from other articles, including what they read in Wikipedia, padded with an answer or two from a press event. If you look carefully at the interviews, you see that Buster himself often doesn't give absolute dates, only relative ones - "when I was 10", "the year after", "for 35 years". It's the journalists and the copiers of articles who convert it into "hard" dates. And they often get it wrong. In a CNN report, for example, they flashed his birth year as "1907" over the screen - well, someone obviously thought if he is 101 in 2008, he must be born in 2008-101. Not so. Likewise, if I say I married at 14 and my marriage lasted 35 years, it did not necessarily end in birthyear+14+35. It could be also birthyear+14+35+1 or even birthyear+14+35+2.--Kathlutz (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kath/Kathlutz,

Yes, of course we can't be sure of the facts (in this case more than others probably!) but we can be sure about what has been reported by the media; 1955 has been reported and so this is what we should report -- which tallies with the marriage lasting 35 years, BTW. Although of course your point about being out by a year either side is correct. Nevertheless, 1955 is the only date reported for Iriana's death, so let's go with it.--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am totally ok with leaving it as it is but it was in the most recent Times article that "mid1950s" was used instead of "1955". That's why I changed it. They did not find a record of her death in the official marriage database, not for 1955 and not for the years close to 1955. --Kathlutz (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is this: Wikipedia articles should be based on original research (the recent Times article shows some original research has been done) or original interviews (like the Independent article from last year where the 35 years of marriage were mentioned - but not 1955), not on write-ups like the recent Saga article. You must be aware that journalists produce articles that sound as if they had thoroughly interviewed someone when all they did was just collect information from many second and third hand sources and put it together in a way that makes it sound as if they had done an in-depth interview.--Kathlutz (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that the Times explicitly says "mid1950s" -- and the Times is a more reliable source than Saga, so perhaps it should be changed back or perhaps both "dates" should be mentioned and attributed. BTW I agree that journalists often produce articles that look like they are based on a personal interview, when this is often not the case.--Michael C. Price ^talk 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Inflation

Hi Michal--- no it wasn't that. I just wanted to separate the causal patch picture from the exponentially separating geodesic picture, which is complementary. I tried to reinsert your discussion in its own frame, but I couldn't figure out how to do it.Likebox (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Aquaman

Plots should be succinct. Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the show. Most of the wording in that addition is very POV to begin with, and the details themselves are not relevant to the plot of the episode as a whole. There is no reason to be wordy when you can cover the same idea in a more tightened sentenced.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

And if someone misses an episode? Fuck'em, eh? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We aren't a free substitution. If they miss it, they can catch it again. If they want to watch a movie, then they should either go buy it or wait for it go appear on TV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your home to catch up on everything you missed in your favorite television show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange, I thought an encyclopedia was where you could look things up. Seems I was mistaken. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Look things up? Why would you look up what happened in an episode of a show for any other thing than to get a basic idea of what happene? Why would you come to Wikipedia to find out every little detail that happened on television? There are better places for that, places that aren't encyclopedias, like the actual television you would watch said show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't you understand that Wikipedia has uses other than you can comprehend? I guess not. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I must have touched a nerve, because you're becoming quite hostile. I guess I shall leave you alone so you don't get too upset. BTW, Wikipedia's purpose, as I have stated repeated and which you are apparently failing to "understand", is not to be a substitute for reading, listening, watching, or whatever other flavor or practice you choose to enjoy your entertainment. Notice how I said "entertainment" and not simply generic "reading, etc etc." It is for reading, but not for reading everything that happens in a book. It is for listening, as we have articles that have been recorded and can be played back, but it isn't for listening to your favorite songs (hence why any samples we have are limited to about 20-30 seconds). Now, we have viewable content as well, but we don't provide clips from shows because we aren't a substitute for watching them. We don't substitute the experience of watching a show with a literary version of everything that happens. ALL fictional topics must contain a succinct version of the fiction itself, in order to provide the context a reader needs to understand the real world information present in the article. It is not there for readers to "catch up" on their shows. The fact that some people use it for that is irrelevant to the fact that it is not the intention. Now, maybe since you're approaching half a century on this planet everything becomes difficult to fully comprehend, but maybe ever repeated readings you'll eventually understand yourself. Regardless, my part in these conversation is over. You have yourself a nice evening. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the obsession some people have for deleting information here has never made sense to me. Has nothing to with age.--Michael C. Price ^talk 00:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for ArbCom clarification

This is to advise you that a request for a clarification of an earlier Arbitration Committee decision involving you has been requested at Wikipedia:Request for arbitration#Request for clarification:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Those were interesting. I think you might be right about this proto-Everett thing. Maybe later Schrodinger might be more like Wigner than Einstein.Likebox (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fish liver oil

Firstly, don't reinsert the crap-load of unverified and PoV material I removed because you disagreed with one aspect of my edit. Please be more selective. Secondly, the fish liver oil was removed because it was WP:SYNTH, not because it was untrue. Jefffire (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You ask me to be selective, yet you are not. Follow your own advice and be selective. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Great!

You read Born's paper! I always wondered what it was he was thinking. Is it online?Likebox (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for plowing over that paper, it sounds interesting. Even if it isn't so mathematical, there might be something precise in there that he is trying to say. Those guys communicated by telepathy.

If I had to blindly guess Born's argument before you described it, I would have guessed that it started from Heisenberg's radiation formula: Heisenberg tells you half-semiclassically half-matrix-mechanically but mostly by correspondence principle and instinctively that the rate of radiative emission from a large orbit goes like (E_m - E_n)^4 |x_mn|^2. So the ratio of photon emission to different states with the same frequency difference is like |X_mn|^2. After Schrodinger, you understand that there's a wavefunction there, so you can start the wavefunction in state m and ask what is the amplitude to end up in the different lower energy states. The rate of amplitude leaking goes like the dipole matrix element, x_mn, ignoring the frequency factors, so the transition probability should be proportional to amplitude squared. Then you have to think about the frequency dependence to see that this rule is actually right. From your description, it sounds like Born did a lot more philosophizing than I expected.

About Everett--- I remember how misunderstood he was in the dead-tree world, but his stuff is doing fine today. But there's a lot of other great stuff which ended up beached when the ocean of presumed common knowledge shifted. Take S-matrix theory and early string theory, that's even more cryptic for the modern reader than early QM. But I think all it takes is one or two wikipedia articles explaining the basic idea, and from then on all that work will remain accessible for as long as humanity has an internet.Likebox (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the reference--- I looked up Born's paper. As you said, it is a different argument, rooted in wave mechanical scattering not matrix mechanics transitions. Although I think you might have been a little uncharitable to Born when you say he thought psi was the probability, because the wording is ambiguous--- he said that psi "gives" the probability, possibly meaning that the probability is determined by the psi, but not a precise formula, except in the footnote, where it is right. The |psi|^2 is more or less clear by thinking about scattering intensity. But I don't know what the original German said. Anyway, cheers.Likebox (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes at "Schrödinger's cat"

I've added a discussion section for my changes on the article's talk page; however, it did seem inappropriate to me that you reverted my edits for the sole reason that they were "undiscussed". Thanks in advance for working things out with me, and sorry if there's any misunderstanding. ~Wikimancer X *\( ' ' ^) 07:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - I see the expert tag was only about the introduction, which I missed. The intro does need a clean up. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also for bringing the expert attention in question in your clarifications; I was going to say the article probably as much needed the scholarly expertise of someone familiar with explaining physics as it did scientific know-how. ~Wikimancer X *\( ' ' ^) 21:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics participation

You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 15:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Schroedingerscat3.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Schroedingerscat3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lokal_Profil 19:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi the reason the image is up for deletion is beacuse it's licensed for non-commercial distribution and modification. Images used on Wikipedia must be available for commercial use as well. More info can be found under "Please read this important message first". /Lokal_Profil 16:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Article on Everett

As I wrote on Everett's discussion page, we've send an english, much improved, version of the portuguese article, but it's being reviwed so it might take a few more months before it gets accepted. In the meantime, you can read the english abstract of my master thesis, ask me anything that you might be interested and I may also send you, probably next week, my talk for the HQ2 conference. You can read the abstract of it on the page at the discussion page of Everett's article.--Fabiofreitas (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, happy to work with you

Hi, Michael. Thank you for sharing my interest in the topic. It has always been a pleasure working with you on these articles. I remember the time more than a year ago when we had very satisfactory collaboration on the same topics. I was dismayed when I learned post-factum that you have been punished on unrelated topic. I tried to argue this punishment to be lifted because your absence was a blow for the GR articles. There were no tangible results of this appeal. Anyway, I am glad you are back again and we can discuss these topics of mutual interest.

My interest in this is a case of a profession turned into a hobby. My original education and MS thesis is in theoretical physics, and the 10 LL volumes were the staple courses in university. Later, in order to earn a living, I had to focus in another field: molecular biology, calculation of molecular conformations, etc. and I made my Ph.D. diss in molecular biology; however, the interest in GR remained and turned into a hobby. I am interested in several topics in GR: one is the pseudotensor in connection to the energy localization and conservation, relation between matter and geometry, and so on. The calculational difficulties in obtaining 96,8 and 96,9 piqued my interest in the math/technical side of tensor calculation, and algorithms for tensor simplification, which is basically computer programming stuff. Another topic of interest for me is the quasi-isotropic model, and particularly the gradation of kinds of matter in it: from vacuum through radiation to several types of matter. Again the math aspect, and the feeling of some uncanny order connected with combinatorial sequences, is very intriguing. A third topic of interest are singularities, and the many enigmas connected with them. In this respect, the surprising generality of the BKL model (BKL singularity) is a very attractive topic to work on and discuss. Another interest are some purely math/geometry topics, as Curvilinear coordinates, Pseudotensor, Covariant derivative, Eigenvector, eigenvalue, and eigenspace. The challenge there is didactic: how to present them to the general public to be understood, and at the same time not to lose generality and rigor. I am interested also in some history topics (as a hobby) and finding the objective truth in some historic events. However, I dislike very much the passionate discussions that inevitably arise around these topics, personal charges, etc. that obfuscate the truth. So several months ago I decided not to be involved in history, and also in any topic that requires pouring charges and countercharges and becoming too much personally involved. I like to be more positive and helpful than threatening and disruptive. Because I see the same features in you too, I am very glad when I see your contribution in a discussion or an article. --Lantonov (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Lantonov, thanks for the reply.

I seem to be a slower learner than you, especially in regard to the futility of updating historical articles here. I naively thought that history would easy to work on in Wikipedia; frustratingly it seems to be one of the hardest. That's a shame because I find history fascinating, especially ancient history. The editing restriction I incurred for stepping on the toes of a few historical/ religious bigots did seem disproportionate in that it was all encompassing; if ArbComm felt my actions were disruptive to one article, why place a broader restriction? In the end, though, it made little difference; the reason for my reduced involvement over the past few months was/is mostly due a couple of breakdowns in my health, which I am only slowly recovering from. Studying GR was a very diverting distraction when I felt unwell; very much a case of every cloud having a silver lining.

Like you I enjoy the didactic challenge of explaining something rigourously but with clarity. And as a side benefit, as you have found as well, you end up understanding the subject better. GR is a hobby of mine now (I didn't understand it very much when I was at college, despite having Michael Duff as lecturer. Thankfully I took down a comprehensive set notes!). One of things I like about GR is way it illuminates, and leads you off into, other areas (a recent diversion of mine has been into the Dirac equation).

Finally, let me share an insight which has slowly penetrated my skull over the last 25 years. GR is a tensor theory because we wish to impose a general co-ordinate covariance on our equations. But their is an additional invariance that we expect any physical equation to satisfy: to be locally lorentz covariant -- and for that we have to use frame fields or vierbeins. Rewriting the equations or lagrangian in terms of the vierbein, by replacing the metric with the vierbein instead:

$g^{\mu \nu }=e_{a}^{\mu }e_{b}^{\nu }\eta ^{ab}$

leads to many simpler expressions, e.g.

$e={\sqrt {-}}g$

You can raise and lower indices with $e_{a}^{\mu }$

$T^{a}=T^{\mu }e_{\mu }^{a}$ etc

just as you can with the metric, but both invariances are encoded with the vierbein since:

$T'^{\mu a}={\frac {\partial x'^{\mu }}{\partial x^{\nu }}}T^{\nu a}$

under a general co-ordinate transformation and

$T'^{\mu a}=\Lambda (x)_{\ b}^{a}T^{\mu b}$

under a local lorentz transformation. Strangely, MWT hardly touch on the subject. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't dealt much with vierbeins mainly because I studied from older LL editions in University. Lifshitz found vierbeins to be important enough to include in the newer editions (section 98. The tetrad representation of the Einstein equations). I am (or was?) interested in Bulgarian Medieval History (Battle of Pliska among others) and other related topics. Nationalist sentiments in the Balkans run particularly high so I had very rough editing experience all the time. Political factions deliberately fill whole articles with falsified historical materials, Republic of Macedonia justifies its existence with newly invented history, Greece and Turkey deny whole history chapters, Romania pretends to have owned the non-Greek part of the Balkans, not to speak of Serbia ... In short, a can of worms. Whole sections, for which I have worked for months got deleted without explanation. When I tried to argue - first I got personal attacks, then admins got involved and so on, a living hell. In one moment, I sat and thought "I waste my time and web resources in order to be abused and punished. Why do I do it? I am supposed to have fun in the net." This realization helped me to quit. I am glad I did it because now I really edit happily and enjoy discussions with partners like you and JR. I see that you studied in Imperial College London. Three days ago (22/7) I passed by it along Queen's Gate on my way to the Natural History Museum. I am biologist by profession and was on a business trip in London.--Lantonov (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you spotted the giant amphibian fossil (from Australia, DevonianMiddle Triassic) Paracyclotosaurus davidi just off the central area; the only representative of its species (and probably genus, for all I know). My favourite fossil.

I forgot to mention earlier the punchline with vierbeins: varying the action w.r.t. the vierbein field yields the standard Einstein field equations, but, additionally, varying the action w.r.t. to the spin connection gauge field ($w_{\mu }^{ab}$ in my response to JRSpriggs) yields an analogous equation for torsion, complete with a spin connection current density.--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your support on the "plagiarism" (sic) a few months ago. You are my true Wiki friend. Now I feel partly vindicated because the slanderer got punished for his incivility and POV pushing. Presently, I am working on my own web sites and it will take a lot more to induce me to edit again here.

Good to hear from you. I understand your frustration and sense of vindication. I use Wiki more as research tool since being burnt by some bigots awhile back. (My current interest is Pati-Salam unification.) I'm glad to hear the slanderer got punished -- I must look it up for my own amusement. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Lystrosaurus - please review

Since you've taken an interest in Lystrosaurus, I'd be grateful if you'd review it. If I get enough encouragement and Dutch courage I might go for GA. Please leave comments at Talk:Lystrosaurus -- Philcha (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a question

I was curious if mega has anyone in their twenties? Second question is how many people join (or qualify) per year? Do the people who join follow any age distribution? Am I correct to think that even if there are few people who are young, that this should be the largest growing segment? With the birth and growth of the internet, I would suspect that in my lifetime, all members will eventually join or qualify in their 20's.

Thanks 76.4.128.40 (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be guessing -- Canon should be able to say for sure. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

BBC programm

A lot of errors in this programm. Please read this: http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2008/10/oldest-bible-in-news.html It will better if you will remove link to it. Only on talk page is place for this kind of information. You need read what Skeat wrote about the codex. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to provide both the links to the BBC programme and to the critical blog. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak Hypercharge and B-L

Hi Michael. They aren't identical, but they are similar. They are both conserved charges in the standard model, but Weak hypercharge has a "photon" associated to it, which is half of the actual photon. The electromagnetic photon is a mixup of the weak hypercharge photon and one of the three weak SU(2) "photons". B-L is a conserved charge in the standard model which does not have a photon, there is no associated gauge boson, although some people used to speculate that it does have a gauge photon, but that its really weakly coupled, meaning all the charges are really really teeny ( that's one of the motivations for establishing bounds in string theory for weak charges--- to show that this isn't true).

Hi Michael, just wanted to say--- the "some people" in the sentence above isn't me. It's some people whose name I don't remember. I tried to prove they were wrong by finding a limit on how weak charge can be in quantum gravity.Likebox (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The way people say it usually is that the electroweak standard model is SU(2) cross U(1), and weak hypercharge is the U(1). B-L is just a global conserved quantity.Likebox (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi --- I just saw why this is confusing--- somebody wrote that weak hypercharge is B-L over at the weak hypercharge page. That's not true. You can't write weak hypercharge that way because it's not really a conserved quantity because the vacuum is full of higgs field. That means that the only "conserved quantity" corresponding to weak hypercharge is the electric charge, and that's mixed up with the SU(2). The Higgs mechanism makes it hard to see that weak hypercharge (or weak SU(2) charges) are conserved.Likebox (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That somebody was me, so just as well I checked with you. I don't really see the distinction between the two -- I'll have to mull over the matter. I understand your explanation about SU(2) and the various photons and so on, but am going adrift about not equating that with the global B-L symmetry.--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael--- sorry it took a while. B-L is a conservation law, but weak hypercharge is not conserved (meaning its not apparent that there is a conservation law). The reason is that weak hypercharge has a higgs field.

Think of living inside a superconducter. Would you think that electric charge is conserved? you wouldn't know that it was, because there would be no Gauss's law, no long range fields, and charge would slosh in from infinity to neutralize any region with extra charge. That's the same as the Higgs mechanism--- weak hypercharge is (partially) higgsed, so you can't identify it with any conserved quantity.

For specific examples--- the Higgs field has weak hypercharge 1/2 (the actual value depends on convension--- I am not sure if the one I like to use coincides with the usual one), and the Higgs isn't a baryon or a lepton, so B=0 and L=0. The quarks have weak hypercharge 2/3 and 1/6 depending on the chirality, and there's no relation between this and B or L. B and L are not chiral, meaning that they are the same for left and right handed stuff, but weak hypercharge is different for left and right handed leptons. The left handed electron-neutrino doublet has a different weak hypercharge than the right handed electron singlet, but they have the same lepton number (and no baryon number).

The similarity between weak hypercharge and B-L is that they are both important U(1) quantum numbers in the standard model, but B-L is a global symmetry, while weak hypercharge is coupled to a gauge field, which is half the photon. Hope it clears things up. Good luck with the article.Likebox (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Michael--- yes the weak hypercharge U(1) charge is still conserved, but it's not trivial to see that its conserved because there is a background of charged particles. For example, in regular electrodynamics in vacuum, there is exactly zero amplitude for a proton to turn into a neutron, because they have different electric charges and charge is conserved. For this reason, if you ignore the Higgs mechanism, there is zero amplitude for a left-handed electron to turn into a right handed electron, because they have different hypercharge (and different SU(2) representation, but ignore that for the time being). An electron mass term takes a left-spinning electron (where spin is measured along the direction of motion, so it's really chirality) and turns it into a right-spinning electron. That's impossible, because the left and right spinning electron have a different value of the charge.

But the electron has a mass, so what gives? What's going on is that a left-spinning electron can absorb a Higgs from the background and turn into a right spinning electron. Without the Higgs, the electron and the quarks would have to be massless just from charge conservation, because the two chiralities have different hypercharge. This is a really important point, because in general, if a field can be massive all by itself, without the Higgs getting involved, then you would expect, just by dimensional analysis, that the mass would be of order 1 in natural units, meaning that the particle would have a mass approximately equal to the Planck mass. We would never observe a particle that heavy. So the only particles we can see are those which are forced to be massless by charge conservation, in other words, where the different helicities have different values for the weak hypercharge and weak isospin.

The Noether procedure works fine--- you still have a conservation law. But because there is all this Higgs everywhere, the conserved quantity doesn't look like its conserved. Particles with one value of hypercharge have nonzero amplitudes to turn into particles with another value of the hypercharge, and we would never know that hypercharge is conserved.

Sidney Coleman used to say that there are three ways to figure out a conservation law which is that badly broken:

1. High energy (meaning energy high enough to produce a Higgs boson)
2. High temperature (meaning high enough for the symmetry to be restored)
3. High IQ

he then pointed out that historically, we used method 3! Meaning, Nambu, Goldstone, Glashow, Anderson, Brout, Englert, Higgs, Kibble, Weinberg, Salam etc. figured out that the weak interactions have a badly broken charge with hardly any experimental input other than the parity violation in weak decays and the observation that the Fermi theory needs to be made renormalizable. That's kind of amazing to me.Likebox (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again--- I noticed a while ago that the standard model pages doesn't describe any of this stuff very well. I had a vague impulse to rewrite that once, but I couldn't make my mind up whether to use 2-component spinors, which make writing down the most general Lagrangian easier, or 4-component spinors, which require complicated looking (1+/-gamma5)/2 factors to project out the two helicities. The gamma5 way is standard in the world of phenomenology and experiment, but it is ugly and I found it hard when I was first learning the stuff. On the other hand, the Feynman diagrams for 2 component spinors are not done in books, and the two-component identities are not as well-known as the gamma trace identities. So I couldn't decide, and I never did anything. Maybe you have an idea.Likebox (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I did something on standard model, to at least explain that the fields with weak hypercharge and weak isospin are the chirality components, not the "positron" and "electron" (that's a terrible way to say it. That's the particle data book for you). The chirality of the standard model is one of the most salient aspects. Could you tell me if the stuff is comprehensible?Likebox (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fringe theories noticeboard

You are invited to join the discussion here.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to RMS Titanic

My apologies for the terse edit summary: fingers on autopilot. See the talk page for the proper version. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Quantum Immortality = Travel Between Universes?

I`ve no idea how someone would go about navigating or directing the travel, but does it not stand to reason that, should quantum immortality hold true (admittedly a big if), then one could use that as a way to get to a better (or far worse!) universe? Could this effectively amount to time travel? I mean, if in the multiverse, all times are happening `now`(ie: the snapshot hypothesis of reality, that each instant is its own `now`), and your mind `carried over` to those worlds, would that not for all intents and purposes BE time travel?

Thanks!

Ghostface26 (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, since the way it would manifest itself is that the subject's existence would be preserved by a series of unlikely events. No time travel or universe hopping, though.--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that part. This jumps into the pseudo-science range now, but how would you KNOW that your experiences are the same? I mean, even what you remember now could be being changed all the time (hypothetically). If we extrapolate from that, we realize that because QI is only testable to observer being killed (and therefore not killed), everything could change and they`d have no externally independent source to corroborate the truth of the matter.

And doesn`t it imply universe hopping if the existence is preserve? If I die in this universe, but survive in the one next door, and I`m still aware of being alive, it could be said that I`ve jumped universes, correct?Ghostface26 (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You're thinking too deeply; it's much more simple. You load a gun, put the barrel to your head and pull the trigger. You only survive in those universes where something happened to stop your brains being splattered across the wall (e.g. mechanism jams, or you discover the bullets were duds after all or whatever). In those universes your memories are still consistent with your environment and history.--Michael C. Price ^talk 11:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

TNS

Yes, but where is the evidence that they are members of TNS? -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea -- it was just the lack of notability I was contesting. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I was asking for reliable verification of TNS membership. Would you mind if I restore the tag? -- Avi (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, although it might be better to tag the names individually so that it's clear what you're asking for. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What about wormholes to access parallel universes?

Did Sidney Coleman not publish a paper about how the existence of wormholes would be enough to negate the cosmological constant? Could they not be used to access these universes?Ghostface26 (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I recall reading something in New Scientist to that effect, but the parallel universes reached via wormholes are a different category of parallel universes (completely different spacetimes, no common history) from the Everett parallel universes (same spacetimes, but different histories after a certain time).--Michael C. Price ^talk 10:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Cantor's theorem

I think this edit may make the matter more complicated than it is. That Cantor's theorem is true of finite sets is obvious even if you've never heard that the number of subsets of a size-n set is 2 ⁿ, simply because there are as many one-member subsets of A as there are members of A, and in addition to the one-member sets there are others as well. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether that explanation is more "obvious" is debatable, but it is useful to point out that the size of a finite power set is 2^n. Makes the subject more comprehensible.--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Codex Sinaiticus

Why did you add in this edit [9] material without any examination. It is not true Codex Sinaiticus contains these verses (only some words, or phrases of these verses). In the future use sources. Now I have a lot of work. I did not realize that before. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

John 9:38 and John 16:15 existed in the manuscript. Only small part of Act 15:34 existed in some not numerous Greek manuscripts, the other part only in Latin manuscripts of late Vulgate. Erasmus many readings took from Latin manuscripts. Rea this please: Novum Instrumentum omne. You used Bible verses not included in modern translations? This article is not reliable and has wrong title. It should be titled "Interpolations of Textus Receptus". Some readings you can not find in a Greek manuscripts, some other only in late and corrupted Greek manuscripts. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI I merely expanded the bible citations already present into fuller quotations to make the article more reader-friendly. If the quotations were/were not in the CS in their complete/incomplete form then this is an error that was already present in the article before my edit. For example, you say that John 9:38 and John 16:15 are in the CS. Fine, but that was not what the article said originally, since it was listed under the section that claimed they were omitted (as the edit diff you cited shows). Let's concentrate on improving the article, which is frequently ambiguous and unclear.--Michael C. Price ^talk 09:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are right, they were added in this edition [10]. But before your expanding edition I did not see these added verses. Sorry. It take me a lot of time to verify all of these verses. Some of them we can find in the in the codex, some in a shorter version, and other only in Latin, not Greek manucripts. By the way, I afraid that these article will vandalize in the future more often. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's ok, I understand it takes awhile to verify whether each verse appear in the CS (which I have not checked). Thanks for your work on the article.--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution (October 2008 - Codex Sinaiticus). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:MEDRS#Popular press

The wall street journal is NOT a reliable source for medical articles. And if you actually read the medical article about the complete and utter failure of multivitamins to do anything but make expensive urine, you'd see that the authors speculated that Folic acid should be used by pregnant women and Vitamin B has well known activities for cardiovascular disease, but these were not part of the study. Good luck in your POV pushing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you've also misrepresented another source (re "conclusive") I think you are rather less reliable than the WSJ. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, you have failed to read what constitutes a reliable source. I am not a source, so therefore, I cannot be more or less reliable than the WSJ. Popular press is not a reliable source for medical articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 12:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The WSJ and especially the oncology site are not popular press. The latter in particular is well suited to pass commentary which should be reported here.--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not peer-reviewed. Case closed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Take it to the OM talk page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Orthomolecular medicine

Please try to remain WP:CIVIL and on-topic. Posts like this one really do not help anything. Thank you, - Eldereft (cont.) 14:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I trust you will offer OrangeMarlin a similar bit of advice, since he is much more in need of it? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If they make personally directed or otherwise anti-productive comments after my general admonishment towards civility, yes of course. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We'll see. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Y'see, this is what I am talking about. Accusing another editor of mendaciously inserting untruth? That is really no way to build an encyclopedia. I am not saying that Orangemarlin is making it easy to maintain a collegial atmosphere, but surely you can do better than that. You also edit in physics - would you be willing to help me add references to Spin-charge separation or Double electron capture? Neither has any at the moment. Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Cleanup listing is pretty extensive, so just pick an article and you and I can bring it to something resembling an encyclopedic standard, what do you say? - Eldereft (cont.) 21:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am accusing OrangeMarlin of lying -- a claim that others have made before. Editors are allowed to question the good faith of others where there is evidence, and there is plenty of evidence on this score. He is not engaging in substantive debate and (even worse) frequently misrepresents facts and data. I responded to his requests for studies and just got more abuse from him. BTW, I see you have not reprimanded him for his uncivil behaviour, so, yes, we have seen. Your advice seems very one-sided. Show me that I err in my judgement of you and we can work together. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not reprimanding anyone, just trying to calm down that page so we might eventually get a coherent article out of it. Which particular edit did you feel to be egregiously uncivil? I interpreted OM's recent edits as abrasive but not in violation of WP:CIVIL, but if you explain how you felt personally affronted, I would be willing to try to broker some manner of truce. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters, and setting aside the abusive and non-substantive nature of his talk page contributions, there is the matter that he refuses to allow sourced commentary about PMID 19204221 into the article. The grounds for rejection are bogus: the 3 refs I've provided are reliable sources for simply reporting what the original study says.--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That is an issue of content, not behavior. Talk page comments that are non-substantive are governed by the talk page guidelines; comments that cross the line from heated or dismissive to constitute an attack should be referred to Wikiquette alerts. From my admittedly limited experience at WQA, low-level carping accompanied by discussion over sources usually results in a reminder to all parties to stay focused on improving the encyclopedia.

Are you referring to these sources? The grounds for rejection seem to be Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Popular press, which discourages use of popular press articles as the root source for medical issues. Linking to an accessible summary along with the actual reference is good style and serves our readers. Such a summary should not be used alone, except when it provides details not treated in the article, such as biographical details. Is the original study inaccessible for some reason? - Eldereft (cont.) 00:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are the sources I refer to. The full-text of the original study is inaccessible to me (says in progress on PubMed), hence I have to rely on the secondary sources. The same section you highlighted (Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Popular press) allows the use of high quality popular press, as I've just commented on on the OMM talk page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean On the other hand, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs and historical information in a medical article.? If so, I believe that we are interpreting that sentence differently. I read it as indicating that whatever information is actually in a peer reviewed journal article should be cited to the article itself, with popular press articles being used only for ancillary information or for an accessible summary. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So we can resolve this citing the original article as well? --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem with putting that as a lay summary, yes. I would be somewhat leery of citing a result that the authors did not think important enough to include in the abstract, but that is a matter for articletalk. Try bringing it up there? - Eldereft (cont.) 02:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Might be better if you say it, since nothing I say is going to be rationally processed. --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. First summary the best. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Continued violations of WP:NPA

See this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Medea Hypothesis

I have nominated Medea Hypothesis, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medea Hypothesis. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael, thank you for your reply and question. As I stated in my edit summary, I was referring specifically to your repeated insistence that a "cabal" is controlling the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read the edit comment. And since you're being polite, I shall desist. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin

The continual sniping at Talk:Orthomolecular medicine is really boring and counterproductive to actually building an encyclopedia. There are enough editors there that it should be possible for the two of you mostly to shun interacting with each other without negatively impacting discussion. Would you be willing to try this? - Eldereft (cont.) 18:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Difficult when he makes changes like this--Michael C. Price ^talk 02:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at WP:ANI

Hello, Michael C Price. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic WP:ANI#User:MichaelCPrice. Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

GRT

This is the only text in the deleted article:

Gordon Rattray Taylor

(This text is from the backpage of [The Doomsday Book] (ed.1972))

Portrait of Gordon Rattray Taylor

Is a writer who has specialise in making use of the findings of the social sciences in order to interpret the trends of contemporary society. His first book, Economics for the Exasperated, attracted immediate attention. Then followed Conditions of Happiness, in which he analysed the social and psychological forces at work in modern society. In Are Workers Human? he dealt with human behaviour in the industrial context. Later books were The Angel Makers, The Science of Life and The Biological Time Bomb.

Mr. Taylor studied the natural sciences at Cambridge, and later entered journalism. During the war he worked for the BBC, as well as in the Psychological Warfare division of SHAEF. He was the deviser of the `Eye on Research' programmes on BBC television.

Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Further changes in AC article

Hello Michael, I'm not sure I understand your comments regarding the BT sentence at "Axiom of choice". Why would it need further changes? Godelian (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to leave in the explicit relevance to B-T, so I reverted the change. However the non-measurable stuff looked relevant and perhaps could be re-added as well. But I wasn't sure how. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Higgs Business

I didn't mean to be dismissive or offensive, I'm sorry. I just got annoyed with the constant haggling over such little things. Of course you have a respectable point of view: I know you are a reasonable person, with valid points to make. I am frustrated that we can't seem to come to agreement over such minor quibbles.

The thing I wanted to do on this page is make the Higgs mechanism accessible to a person who thinks in physical terms, not in terms of mathematics. For such a person, a transformation of the Lagrangian is not a great way to understand mass generation. The Feynman way of thinking, where the shift in the Lagrangian is a scattering of particles, is not a 100% great explanation, because the scattering is strange in this case, it involves "eating" of massless modes into massive modes.

But there is a way of thinking about it which is physical, and clear, and it is the one that I was trying to put in the lead. I am worried that the article will bury the physics of the mechanism once people mathematize and jargonize it.Likebox (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I do understand your frustration, and I share your aim of making the concept accessible. An idea has occurred to me, which might mesh well with your approach: perhaps, instead of making the analogy with superconductivity, should we be thinking in terms of superfluidity? If the Higgs condensate is a Bose-Einstein condensate, then perhaps the condensate behaves as a high temperature BEC? The high mass of the Higgs would enable the Higgs BEC to function as a superfluid even at room temperatures and much higher. (This might be the same thing as you are saying, since my (limited) understanding is that superconductivity is enabled by the cooper-pairs forming a superfluid.) Superfluids are frictionless, which would help the layman get a physical picture of why we can't detect the Higgs condensate by conventional methods.--Michael C. Price ^talk 23:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when I said "superconductivity" in the article, I just meant "charged superfluid". The two terms are almost synonyms. The difference between a superfluid and a superconductor is that when a superfluid is charged, all fluid flows cost energy, even the longest wavelength ones. That's called the "mass gap" in condensed matter physics and the Higgs mechanism in high energy physics.Likebox (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is, that, yes, charged superfluid is fine, but the essential property is not that there is zero friction, but that there are no flows at all below a certain frequency. In other words, a superfluid is not exactly like the vacuum, because there are superflows which you can excite. But a superconductor is like the vacuum, because all the flows are mixed up with the photon to make a massive gauge field which is short ranged.Likebox (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I also wanted to clarify the "almost" in "almost synonyms". In Landau's original description, a superconductor is a charged superfluid, or a charged BEC. This picture is not 100% correct for real metals, because the pairing of electrons is so weak. So electrons are far apart from each other in the pairs, the cooper pairs don't look like point particles.

But for the Higgs mechanism, the elementary field describes bosonic point particles. So the analog of a cooper pair is just a point! So there's no subtlety. A superconductor made out of charged points is exactly the same as a Higgs mechanism for a scalar field with a VEV, and changing between the two pictures is just the usual particle/field duality.Likebox (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

transition amplitude calculations

I've been trying to clarify the beginner's level explanation of Heisenberg's matrix mechanics and I can account for all of the basic information he used in his 1925 paper except for the transition amplitudes. There is some indication that he used the square root of measured intensities to provide experimental values, but he needs to have had a way of predicting these values on the basis of the electron energy states and other known information. Do you have any information or ideas of where to look?

Thanks. P0M (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't be able to look into it for awhile. All I can think of at the moment is that transition amplitudes weren't really understood until Max Born came along (?). So perhaps Heisenberg was guessing without any foundation at the time? If you can't follow Heisenberg's reasoning you're in good company; I believe it was Steve Weinberg who said that he couldn't follow H's derivation /motivation in his matrix mechanics paper. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do have a look at it when you get time. I'm pretty sure that he must have started from a classical equation that would allow the calculation of the amplitudes of harmonics of a fundamental frequency. His 1925 paper is in Sources of Quantum Mechanics by B.L. Van der Waerden.

Several people have commented that they can't follow the paper very well, but others have come along to explicate it to some extent. My guess is that one would be greatly helped by having great familiarity with the works of Kramer and others back to the path breaking work of Bohr. I just want to get readers to the point where they can see what the pieces were, and how putting them together into one coherent picture was a great advance. I think most readers will happily accept excuses if it turns out that to follow out the math in detail they might have to take up the life of a physics major for more than a year.

Some of the secondary materials I have seen might cause the high school readers to conclude that matrix mechanics is beyond their intellectual capacities.

Thanks.P0M (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Steven Weinberg comment is on page 52-53 of his Dreams of a Final Theory. The footnote is about transition amplitudes.--Michael C. Price ^talk 05:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find the book. There is something a bit quirky about how the intensities calculated can correspond to a single transition. I was hoping I could better see what might be going on if I could put some numbers to it. I took the square roots of the intensity values for the lines in the visible part of the spectrum, made up plausible results for the surrounding values, and was rather surprised when I got back results that are close predictions -- this despite instead of squaring a value I associated it with a number of adjacent values. If I'd populated an amplitude matrix by random numbers of the same order of magnitude as a real amplitude number, did the math, and still came out with reasonably close numbers for the visual part of the hydrogen spectrum, then I'd think further about the probabilities of coming up with the result I did get. So I am guessing that there was something worthwhile about the Heisenberg results even if they were a little ragged around the edges before his colleagues regularized matters. P0M (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

radical alterations to the intro to quantum mechanics article

Hi,

Just after I spent time with the QM professor at my university to try to get me past the point where I stopped editing the intro to QM article, i.e., past the matrix stuff I asked you about above, a new editor sent me some rather judgmental remarks on my talk page. Now he has radically altered the article.

Somebody else wrote most of the article, and there is much in what she wrote that I would like to get changed, but not at the expense of wiping the whole thing out and substituting some "understandable" text. The new editor informed me that the diagrams are "off-putting," for one thing.

I suggested to the editor that he discuss things before making radical changes, but he went ahead anyway.

On the subject of Heisenberg and his amplitudes, I have now gotten a lot clearer on what is going on. I was at least able to get confirmation about which of the equations in Heisenberg's article of 1925 are the jumping off point for a quantum theoretical method of predicting transition amplitudes. I may or may not be able to untangle all of the re-writing of equations in alternate form, possible omissions in the sequence of thought (the things that "everybody knows"), etc., but it is clear now that the math came first. He had the math worked out before others suggested that he put it into matrix form. It was the development of the difference equation way of calculating amplitudes (and thereby of calculating intensities) that opened up the new quantum mechanics.

I think the right way forward for the article would be to make it short and make sub-articles in which to explain things like the details about the matrices, how they were developed, and what they actually look like.

What the new editor would like to do is just have his explanations, no diagrams to explain things like interference, and then links to the major articles. But the novice who wants to understand quantum mechanics beyond the "gee whiz" level yet who does not have a couple of years of college physics and calculus will not find much help in either place.

P0M (talk) P0M (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for Rudeness

Hi Mike, sorry for being rude on the Higgs mechanism page. It's still superconductivity, but that doesn't mean I can stop being civil. The reason I had a personality change is because I have spent a long time arguing with an Australian guy on History Wars, and he is denying the massacre of the Tasmanian natives. It is infuriating, and I picked up bad habits. If you are interested in history, can you help out there?Likebox (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing the things people go into denial about. As I recall the British/Tasman authorities declared a bounty on Tasman natives, with the inevitable result. Hard to see how it can't be described as a massacre, at the very least.

Thanks for the correction about charges. I guess I tend to forget that there are non-conserved charges as well -- one for every generator. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I responded on the talk page. If you're interested in this commuting Cartan subgroup, you can also look into dual superconductivity model. That's the noncovariant setup 'tHooft used to formulate the dual superconductivity picture. Also this is the pattern of Higgs breaking in Seiberg Witten theory, if you like the more modern business.

I was hoping you can help with History Wars (and Genocides in History and Black War and Black line, same problem)--- I can't get the page changed. Whatever I do gets reverted, and the denialist guy (Webley442) has administrator help (PBS, admin, Philip Baird Shearer).Likebox (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edits seems to be holding at Genocides in History. If I find a ref to the bounty claim, I'll add it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources and the help. This really is a thankless job.Likebox (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

summer and extra dimensions

Hi Michael,

I wrote something for you in the LHC talk page, I copy it here to speed up the process.

I see here the beginnings of an edit war, so we should cool down and wait for the intervention of other editors. However:

unless you live at the poles, summer is a roughly three-month period between spring and fall. The fact that the LHC was planned to be shut down in the winter does not mean that it would work only in summer. Is that so difficult? The fact that you dug up some old BBC article using the word summer is not relevant, BBC had a proven record of getting the LHC facts wrong. Try to find some public CERN page with that statement - believe me, you won't. (incidentally, if you write anything like summer you will be assailed by geographically-correct fanatics complaining that in their part of the world that is actually winter... ;-)

Concerning the extra dimensions statement, read the whole section: it is a list of key questions that the LHC will help physicists to answer. In the case of extra dimensions, the key question is indeed whether they exist, and the LHC might answer that question by finding them. It might however be the case that extra dimensions exist but are too small to be accessible at the energy scale of the LHC. This is the meaning of the second question in the sentence (are they detectable?). I presume that with your change you want to stress that the LHC cannot disprove the existence of extra dimensions that are only accessible at higher energy scales. This is true, but it is beside the point in the key questions list. Otherwise, the same argument could be applied to other items in the list (e.g. supersymmetry as well might be realized only at an energy scale higher than that reachable at the LHC).

Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

SUSY

Michael, stop this for a second. I'll send you tons of references to non-supersymmetric extensions of the SM. Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the Sci Am source I cited? June 2003. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Jack the Ripper comments on my talkpage

(from my talk page)
I *have* talked first. And awaiting a response. See talk page. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand, Michael; what I perhaps have not communicated properly is that - until the discussion has concluded as to the appropriateness of the included information - the info should remain out of the article, How many times must it be removed from the article before you relaize that you aren't going to be able to shoehorn it in by force of personality? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, Michael, if you are waiting for a response, then WAIT for a response. Don't continue to edit regardless of the situation. All that will do is create bad faith and a history of pushing which, when combined with policy violations, can only exacerbate a block request. Two things to consider; One, Wikipedia is not a newspaper so we have no need to scoop anybody, there's no time pressure here. And two, the story is over 100 years old, it'll wait. Padillah (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see from the above talk page comments that you are already familiar with the rules on WP:3RR, having been blocked for it in the past, so I won't bother with putting the edit warring template here for your actions on the Jack the Ripper article. Please also read WP:BRD for our rules on how controversial information is added: specifically, if you know something new you want to add is not accepted by other editors, you must demonstrate a consensus on the talk page to include it before adding it again. DreamGuy (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

But I don't know that something is against the consensus if there is no response. No response often does imply acceptance. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll remember this if no other editor comments on my proposal for the LHC article... ;-) Ptrslv72 (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this rationalization. You knew there was no consensus because it was removed, and the talk page comments disagreed with you. Not having a response agreeing with you means there is an obvious lack of consensus for you to make your change, this we default to the status quo. Repeating a change that was reverted previously under the claim that you didn't know anyone opposed it is simply ridiculous. This kind of argument is called WP:WIKILAWYERING and is frowned upon here. DreamGuy (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what your objection was to introducing sourced material, but your assessment above is incorrect. Lack of response on the talk page often does imply acceptance (and my points there have not been fully responded to). Your behaviour re JtR was pathetic -- such as removing material without responding to issues raised on a talk page. Obviously you feel differently. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Effective field theories

Hi Michael,

I see here the occurrence of a familiar pattern from the previous thread: you write something that denotes ignorance or misunderstanding of some basic concept of physics, I spend half a page explaining the physics to you and lose patience in the process, and then you drop the matter and move on to some other gripe (an example? gauge coupling unification). In the meantime, the thread grows to biblical proportions and other editors won't get involved out of fear of wasting too much time. Some posts ago, I suggested that you google the meaning of effective field theories valid at different energy scales, and I meant it. Please look for information until you are able to understand a trivial sentence like Strings do require SUSY at the Planck scale, but there could equally well be strings at the Planck scale without SUSY at the weak scale, or SUSY at the weak scale without strings at the Planck scale by yourself. Then we can discuss about physics. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I made the mistake of thinking that you were trying to say something relevant. My mistake. I see now that you like to go off on long irrelevant tangents, for no particular reason. We all know what Hawking means; he obviously believes in string theory, which requires SUSY. Therefore he would be delighted to see the existence of SUSY confirmed because that increases the credibility and probability of strings. And a lot of other string theorists feel the same way. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

increase the credibility and probability is correct in this context, but is not the same as confirm, which is a rather charged word in physics (another charged word that sometimes you use inappropriately is evidence, but that's another story). OED gives confirm (v) establish the truth or correctness of. Would you subscribe the statement that the detection of SUSY at the LHC confirms string theory? Hawking's star status does not mean that anything a BBC article reports him as saying is gold. We do know what he means, but it is certainly not well formulated in this quote and who knows if he really stated it that way. Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If Hawking did use confirm incorrectly, it is probably because of the high level of expectation people have about SUSY (and strings) being correct and (hopefully) dectected at the LHC. When people regard a hypothesis as (almost) certainly correct they see any evidence in its favour as confirmation. That's life, and that's how people use language.--Michael C. Price ^talk 17:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's life, but as free-willing agents we can choose which quotes we use and which we don't use, and as I said in physics some words are more charged than others. You still haven't said if you personally think that confirmation is used correctly in the quote (BTW, we should ask him, but I suspect that this is the reason why BenRG dropped it from the original paragraph). Ptrslv72 (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Being used to correctly is to some extent dependent on the beliefs of the utterer, as I tried to explain. However, I would not have used it that way. As I said, I have no problem with attaching a explanatory rider saying that strings => SUSY but SUSY =/=> strings (which we can source quite easily). --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OR, we could simply not include a poorly worded statement in the text, as BenRG wisely did. BTW, from your edits I still don't understand if you got this: strings => SUSY is true only at the very high energy scale at which string theory is relevant. It might be that SUSY is manifest at that scale but not at the scale accessible to the LHC. So, detection of SUSY at the LHC does not confirm string theory, and failure to the detect SUSY at the LHC does not disprove it. Nothing that we could see at the LHC would tell us what really happens at the Planck scale (this said, detection of SUSY would surely be encouraging for the string believers). Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

By "SUSY is true" do you mean "SUSY is unbroken"? I agree with the rest of your paragraph.--Michael C. Price ^talk 20:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I actually meant that the statement "strings => SUSY" is true only at the Planck scale (implying, indeed, that SUSY might be broken at a scale lower than the Planck scale but much higher than the weak scale). Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Then your language is sloppy. Be more careful, especially since you have the unpleasant habit of assuming anyone who differs with you is an ignoramus. You should consider that you are not quite as clear as you think you are. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on, I was quoting verbatim from your post and indeed I would not say that strings => SUSY is a paragon of precise scientific language. I would have written that differently (actually, I did in my own post). But this kind of discussion is becoming childish. Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding who knows if he really stated it that way, that is not something wikipedia is concerned with. Wikipedia does not concern itself with the truth, it concerns itself with was what is reported about the truth.--Michael C. Price ^talk 17:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean that if some bonehead reads on The Sun that the LHC will study time travel he is entitled to mention it in the article? Because this is precisely what dragged me into policing the LHC article... Ptrslv72 (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It means we should cite The Sun and then all the sources that refute this myth. We could even have a misconceptions section. Lots of articles do. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This would open the gates to every crazy claim that appears only in one source and is rightly neglected by the others, as in the case I am talking about. There was only a tabloid article with the time-travel story, and obviously no news articles saying "the LHC will not study time travel". What I did was to give the guy links to conferences, workshops and scientific articles (sounds familiar?) to show him that nobody in the real world of particle physicists works on time travel at the LHC. He eventually gave up, but if you had been in his shoes I guess that you would have complained about drawing inferences from primary sources, and insisted that I provide a link to a news article that refutes your claim... Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The time travel story appeared in more than just The Sun. I think it appeared in New Scientist as well. I don't read The Sun but I definitely read it somewhere. Yup, as thought [11]--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Even better, it appeared in The Sun AND The Daily Telegraph (the others seem to be blogs). Do you by chance think that this is a good reason to add it to the list of key questions that the LHC might help answer? Or anywhere else in the article? If that is the case, please add it as soon as possible, it will destroy whatever credibility you may still have with the other editors... Ptrslv72 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Now you're being stupid again. Oh well. BTW here is the New Scientist from that list. I see also the Wall Street Journal ran a story on it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I now recall that the story was even trickier, because the news articles were based on an actual "scientific" paper which, under the catchy title "Time machine at the LHC", actually talked about wormholes (and, of course, had noting to do with the kind of time travel implied by the tabloid stories). The paper is now published in an obscure journal, has collected mostly self-citations and its authors were laughed at when they preseted their results at CERN (see here). No serious physicist would treat this story with any respect. But, had the editor been a bit more persistent, it would have been quite hard to keep the story out of the LHC article on any other grounds than an appeal to common sense (which I am not sure is a codified WP policy). Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

All that shows is that you still don't get Wikipedia. Common sense dictates that it should be addressed somewhere in the article. But I'm repeating myself, and I really can't be bothered to go on. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that this story raises interesting questions on the quality of sources for science articles (but, I agree, now it's not the time). Anyway, the guy wanted to put time travel in the list of key questions, and I suppose that you would have talked him out of it as well. Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Inflaton/Inflation

"You must be kidding" is a nice way to answer people you disagree with, and I tend to (over)use it myself, but it has the problem that the person one is talking to could actually be baffled about your meaning. I feel that explaining in so many words that "inflaton" is not misspelt and so forth is somewhat condescending to the reader. In my opinion, we can and must explain where the suffix -on come from, but that there is no "i" is under everybody's eyes. Happy editing, [[::User:Goochelaar|Goochelaar]] ([[::User talk:Goochelaar|talk]]) 08:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I could have explained it a bit better; the inflaton page exists only so that we can link to it from inflation, so as to stop people continually "correcting" the spelling by inserting an "i". --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks for explaining. The fact is, I came there after reading about inflatons in a "Scientific American" article, so I had taken the word as a matter of fact, and I found it funny the stress on spelling (almost as when some facetious editor tried to write in the Hadron article that its name was not a misspelling for something else). Do you think that we might find a less patronising way to put it? If not, I shan't insist. [[::User:Goochelaar|Goochelaar]] ([[::User talk:Goochelaar|talk]]) 08:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Everett article

Can I believe my eyes? An article on the history of this sorry episode that understands both Everett's position and Bohr's position? That's definitely a sign that humanity is getting smarter. When I was growing up, Bohr's position and Everett's position were understood only by a small subset of people, and the intersection was almost certainly empty. Now it's big enough to include a historian! Thank you.Likebox (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

gauge theory

Hi -- I would like to defuse the incipient edit war between me and Bakken on Nontechnical introduction to gauge theory. Could you help us to start a substantive discussion of the issues I raised on the talk page? I think the three issues I listed under "bad" are all serious ones that need to be discussed.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in. I think your participation on the talk page was very helpful. Sorry for letting it degenerate into an incipient revert war.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hugh Everett III

Do you have a file which you would like me to upload, or do you just want a gallery? -- Avi (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the commons works yet to be sure, but I have one file in partcular I was going to upload with a view to uploading more.--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are having trouble, you can e-mail me the file (and permissions) and I can upload it for you. -- Avi (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Like so: Commons:Hugh Everett III? -- Avi (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit to WP:Linking

I suspect that in this edit you accidentally edited an old revision, as you reverted some changes of mine without any explanation. --___A. di M. 11:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I shall rectify. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --___A. di M. 12:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mitochondrial Eve

I am following Wiki guidelines, and also from Jimbo himself by removing material that is improperly referenced. Improperly referenced refers also to material that improperly cited or a citation to information that is a representation. Simply stated the material was deleted because it is damaging to Wikipedia (it was a complete misrepresentation of Tishkoffs and Wilson's work and because it was POV and OR. I do not need to waste my time fixing a holo-misrepresentation of the science. You have the data, if you think its worthy of returning to the mainpage then do so, but read the references I provided first.PB666 ^yap 04:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It is appropriate and within the wikipedia guidelines to edit controversial sections on the talk page such that they can be discussed before returning to the main-page. In addition sections can be edited in ones personal sandbox, you have until tomorrow, if the misleading information is still present then it will be removed again.PB666 ^yap 04:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Micheal, you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies before making demands upon others. It is completely appropriate to delete material that is improperly referenced or cited, particularly material the is NPOV and original research. However, since you refuse to read the guidelines let me make this clear.

If a claim is doubtful and harmful, you should remove it from the article; you may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless you regard it as very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to a talk page either. Use your common sense. All unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed from articles and talk pages immediately. It should not be tagged. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Libel.

I see so you are playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. OK so that seems like a reasonable reason for me to refactor your contributions to those that are pertinent.PB666 ^yap 20:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

IOW, I am not trying to be an ass, I found something to be a complete misrepresentation of both the topic at hand and what was stated in certain papers, that is harmful to the encyclopedia. Since the statements were a misrepresentation, simply stated I could have deleted it without bringing it to the talk-page, I did conservatively interpret this guideline. Your rework of the section, including its title are still inadequate, however not inviolation of the above. and at somepoint since I am a member of the Human Genetics and Human Molecular Evolution I guess I am not obligated to repair this section.

Coalescent times is not a 'date' there are no Dates prior to written history and you cannot date Eve, she died ages ago. Calling it a date is overdumbing the topic. A coalescence time is an age estimate, a temporal confidence range based on molecular genetic divergence and geological age observations (geologically interpreted dating based on radioisotopic dating of fossils or the formations in which fossils are found). The coalescence times that are presented are not important in and of themselves. Let me make this clear, during long constrictions (in this case verified by the X-linked loci and the Human/Neandertal genome sequencing projects) fixation of low ploidy loci occurs frequently and repetitively. The previous fixation event may have been 15 years prior to mtEve or 15,000 year before mtEve. Within a cohesive species The last fixation event for a locus masks all previous events back to the point in which that species branches from its closest sister species, IOW this event was one of many;however it happened to be the event that was so rapidly followed by a population expansion that none of its subclades fixed in the population.

The 'Date' of mtEve that is presented in the section is presented as trivia and the date is and of itself not important without a decent explanation. The TMRCA can be indirect measure of the population size when ploidy and random processes(drift) and generation times are taken into account. In a given constrict population, quasi-fixation is determined by the 2N rule, however the actual fixation events fall into a probability versus time distribution that that is skewed backwards in time from 0.5X < T < 5X (at 95% confidence) of the mean fixation time X. Consequently the estimate of population size based on T is also a probability versus size distribution.

The two critical factors that makes the mtDNA-'Eve's' TMRCA 'not-trivial' within the section is not mentioned at all. The predicted effective female population size and the estimated date of the inflection of mtDNA lines that is consistent with a major population expansion (see Vigilante et al 1991). For example, we may find, as occurred wtih L0 when genomic sequencing was done, that there is an even more basal branch of mtDNA that pushes backwards the TMRCA 20 or 30,000 years, however if no major early inflection of branching of the new branch occurs then it does not change the inflection time, and while it does increase the TMRCA, it would not change the dynamics much of branching within the constricted time frame. This is why there has been little change in the estimate of effective population size. L0 for example was not spread ubiquitously in Africa and was enriched in a few isolated hunter-gatherers who were already suspected as being early off-branches of the human population that remained connected by low rates of transregional admixture (mostly recent). Therefore two important points come of this research

• All credible studies to date place the effective size of the population between 3900 and 5000 effectively breeding females, with a proposed equilibrium constrict size of approximated 4400 females. As you mentioned Tanzania, albeit you should read Gonder carefully since they describe a region larger, the indirect importance of the TMRCA is that it creates a recent (relative to other paleoanthropological predictions) ancestral population for humans that is too small to be global or semiglobal in size. The study not only verifies the prediction of Brown(1980) that human population expanded after 180,000 years ago, more than likely from Africa, to Vigilant(1989,1991) that humans not only expanded from Africa, but from the region of Africa generally south of the Equator. However, it is the population size that came under critique because it could not exist globally and with great difficulty could explain human habitation in sub-Saharan africa, an area large for such a small effective population of bipeds who by definition had to be an effectively interbreeding population over a period of ~50000 years.

Although Browns work is seldomly credited, what Brown effectively delineated was the division between Out of Africa paleoanthropologist and Multiregional Evolution (the popular opinion of the era). Multiregionalist credited regional humans as descendants from the most early arrivals (erectus) from Africa and genetic admixture by small migrations and diffusive processes within this construct the expectation of TMRCAs for most human loci should be older than the appearance of hominid fossils in Eurasia, now dated to 1.8 million years. Therefore they postulated that Neandertals evolved into modern humans in Europe, Erectines in Asia evolved into modern Asians and Indigenous Australians. The prediction (Brown 1980) of population expansions 180,000 years ago from 'Africa' basically argues that regional contribution was smaller and migrations were more important. The work of Cann and Vigilante from ~1990 argues that the regional contribution was much smaller and that more recent migrations from Africa were very important, in addition the possibility increased that Neanderthals and Asiatic Erectines (now including Homo floriensis) were formally defined biological species (plural). Further molecular genetics has essentially verified that sources of non-constrict-Africa contribution were either minimal or absent. Paabos and Greenfeilds recent work on the Neanderthal genome all but rule out Neanderthal contribution to humans. The new studies of Tishkoff (there are two relevant papers) pushes the TMRCA of humans to specific regions of sub-Saharan Africa (A zone that does not include the most extreme regions of south Africa, nor regions beyond the rain-forest of central Africa), which basically means that all humans in Africa during the predicted coalescent time lived within a small (globally) and examples of other species found during that time frame in other parts of the world (e.g. Europe, N. Africa (Morroco), India(Narmada), E. Asia(Hexian, Zoukoudian, Sumatra, Flores) did not contribute substantive levels of genetic material, and most if not all of these were likely members of different biological species. Physical anthropologist of great number contest this exclusion, and are having to face the consideration that trait markers have been subject to subjective comparative research or comparative anatomy has been thwarted by large scale regional convergent evolution of humans and regional hominids. Because this genetic information is largely unfaltering in the opinion of recent African origins the resulting hypothesis have cause a revolution in paleoanthropology in which physical paleonotologist have dabbled in genetics trying to disprove the hypothesis, largely unsuccessful, and over time we have seen a major retraction of the scale and acceptance of Multiregionalism hypothesis. Even the most ardent supporters of the hypothesis argue from a basically Mostly Out of Africa (Wolpoff), or an Admixture/Replacement models (Trinkhaus). hence, Showing that there was no exo-constrict contribution to humans later is now beyond the scope of mtDNA studies, but was once the primary contribution of the early TMRCAs

• Tishkoffs group (e.g. Gonder et al) further constrains the population to a geographic area were we would consider a bipedal organism, practically speaking, to be a part of a interbreeding population with an increased probability that by random drift a displacement of mtDNA clads might occur. Discontinuous diffusion created by large geographic distances or barriers inhibit effective interbreeding across those distances. It is not so important the place, but the area that is constrained. As you can imagine this L0 lineages are not found in broad regions of Africa (they are found in Arabia, but this is the result of slave trade and increased recent human transmigration), yet these lineages formed 180,000 years ago. Ergo, diffusive processes with cohesive interbreeding, with great difficulty, explain cohesive intebreeding in the entire SSA region. Behar attributes this population structuring to a small expansion and migration of Khosian ancestors to regions away from East Africa whereas Tishkoff attributes this to the migration of L1 bearer away from Angola (by extrapolation). IOW both authors attribute the end of the constriction to migration and expansion of a globally tiny distance (A few hundred miles to a couple 1000 miles) that effectively results in a population structure that persists for 150,000 years.

While this idea seems new, it was proposed almost 2 decades ago. The reading between the lines here is for pre-expansion humans to have persisted in an interbreeding population in Africa, unless human reproductive biology markedly changed (toward more exclusive breeding practices) the geographic area in which it existed had to have been a small fraction of Africa's total area. In contrast to the above the folks that are doing this work are no longer positing the origins of humans in Africa as an alternative the multiregionalism, what they are trying to do is gather strength in the 'other' genetics to indicate a set of constrained geographic coordinates where all humans evolved. Therefore the temporal distances between 'mtDNA-Eve' and two earliest subranches LOd,(abfk) and L1,2 and their geographic distribution will likely be refined by more genetic studies in (central Africas pygmoid peoples, hunter gatherers in Congo, Angola, etc).

Bottom line - mtDNA 'Eve' (TMRCA) compels us to search for tempero-geographic population structures. If this is not in someway stated then it is more or less trivia.

Prod on Timeline of physical chemistry

No pressure... but if there's no content within a week, I don't see much point in keeping the article. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Schrodinger and Von Laue

I am not sure about the exact interpretation Schrodinger had. I don't think he saw hidden variables as the right answer, he might have just liked a pure-wave mechanics like Everett. Von Laue I don't know about, but is he one of the founders? What did he do?Likebox (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea, but Einstein cites von Laue in his letter to Schrodinger (see Schrodinger's cat) as rejecting the "it's just philosophy" approach everyone else plumpted for.--Michael C. Price ^talk 09:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's interesting. I also am being accused of "OR" and "SYNTH" for presenting Dennett's mind-copying and many-worlds mind copying side by side in quantum mysticism (thanks for your supportive blurb). I am horrified, because I think that in the near future, Wikipedia might be run over by an unruly ignorant mob. It makes me appreciate the common sense and flexibility shared by the usenet-folk.Likebox (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By its very nature Wikipedia is already overrun by The Marching Morons. Coping with this is tricky. You might like to look at a recent attempt to inject some sanity at WP:ESCA. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Michael. I have explained the situation to OMCV, but he does not agree, and his arguments, in my view, are becoming specious. I got a supportive 3rd opinion from Count Iblis, but he is ignoring it. Can you offer a supportive opinion? (Only if you are supportive!)Likebox (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

He wants to delete all mention of the Dennett argument. The talk page back and forth was only him saying "Synth" and me saying "not synth" regarding the argument about copying a consciousness. The arguments are annoying, because he is right in the letter of Dennett's argument, but I think he is wrong to the spirit of the argument.Likebox (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Blurring of Planckian pixels

There is no original research. Everything is copied from the cited New Scientist articles based on peer-reviewed publications by a leading scientist.
The first sentence is copied and pasted verbatim from the cited New Scientis article based on the work of Craig Hogan, director of Fermilab's Center for Particle Astrophysics in Batavia, Illinois--Systemizer (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Planckian granularity is a hypothesis, not a fact and shouldn't be presented as such. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Flat earth

I'm sure you are doing this in good faith, but could we take this to the talk page until someone can find a reliable source? I've removed that link as well from an otherwise unsourced paragraph which looks like OR. Our Flat Earth Society page also mentions the link but recognises that it's a parody. Dougweller (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Dougweller (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)