User talk:Tercer

Witt edit Q

Just curious about your thinking on that moebus triangle illustration you removed. What was the problem with it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs)

A couple of references

Hi,

I seem to remember that at some point you wrote that you wanted a reference to something and hadn't been able to find it. I think it had to do with a formal denial of the possibility of faster than light information transmission. I went looking for your remark but couldn't find it, so the following links may be useless to you. I just remember that when I read what you wrote I remembered that I had seen the issue discussed and articles cited.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g7w8441j75831k4x/

http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3977

P0M (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Actually I was looking for a reference about this in the specific context of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, which is the scope of the article of quantum entanglement. I did found the reference, with the help of User:Sabri Al-Safi. I just didn't get around to adding it to the article yet ;p. Your first reference is useful in a more general context, I think the article should mention it as well. Tercer (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing the GA review of Gleason's theorem

I think the most important thing is that the article is in a better state than it was before we started, but having a little more quantum mechanics in the list of GA's is quite nice. XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It's my pleasure. Well, I think the lack of quantum mechanics in the list of GAs does indicate that the quantum mechanics articles are generally not good. Skimming through the list, I only saw two quantum mechanics articles there! Gleason's theorem and Quantum electrodynamics. Tercer (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Bell's theorem

I won't have time for a few days to sift through this edit and see what is worth keeping (I'm not sure that anyone has actually bought what De Raedt and Streater have said, for example). Maybe you'd like to take a look first. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Ugh. There are legitimate observations there mixed with Bell denial. De Raedt, for example, is a crackpot. I'll see what I can do. Tercer (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I also had the sense that it was a mixed bag. XOR'easter (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Bell's Theorem Edit

Hello, thank you for the removal and clarification, I didn't know that included in the theorem was that they are incompatible, I thought it was just showing properties that must hold if hidden variable theory is to be viable. keep up the good work!

You're welcome. I know it can be frustrating to have your edit undone, so I appreciate that you accepted it instead of going to WP:WAR about it. I want to emphasize that it was a good faith edit, it was just incorrect.

I'd like to remind you that when adding comments on talk pages, it's better to add them at the end, not the beginning of the talk page, and to sign your comments with ~~~~. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Tercer (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Photon

Thanks for chiming in at the MWI talk page. Everything else is getting in the way of my Wikipedia time these days (and what editing I can do seems to get sucked up by drama). There has been a bit of activity lately trying to clean up photon, which was promoted to FA back in 2006 but has accumulated a lot of cruft since then. Any corrections there would be much appreciated. XOR'easter (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate it. I'm afraid I won't be able to help with photon, it is not really my area of expertise, and I'm up to my neck trying to finish writing a new paper. I'm trying to keep my Wikipedia work to a minimum these days, it's like a drug to me. Tercer (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Electrodynamic origin of quantum fluctuations

You have recently stated that my papers are nonsense in another webpage Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#2020_publication_Zitterbewegung_and_self_interactions. However, the fundamental lines of the argument contained in my works have not been addressed at all by you, which are simply Maxwell's electrodynamics. Classical electrodynamics is as legit as any other theory unless refuted mathematically or experimentally. The argument in the paper is given by means of mathematical demonstrations that are exact and have been subjected to peer review for six months and accepted for publication in a Q1 journal. In such reference you can find some other papers in which Bell's theorem is refuted using just classical Maxwell's electrodynamics as well. Please, I beg you to speak more careful and prudently about ideas that you do not really know or have not even dared to understand. Sincerely, Alvaro12Lopez (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't addressed why your papers are nonsense because that's beside the point. It suffices to note that they have been completely ignored by the scientific community to remove them from Wikipedia. In any case, classical electrodynamics has been refuted, theoretically and experimentally, more than a century ago, by the advent of quantum mechanics. Light is made of photons, and Maxwell's equations can't handle that. The violation of Bell inequalities is only one of a long list of phenomena that can't be explained by classical electrodynamics. That you're trying to refute Bell's theorem with classical electrodynamics only shows that you're a crackpot. Tercer (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright. Again, you make statements without reading my works, in which I deal with Bell's theorem. You do not even have to read them. Lovely strategy of yours. It is obvious to me that you have no idea about Einstein-Maxwell's equations, symmetry breaking and soliton theory. What for? Just keep repeating what you have been told. So, unfortunately, you must have no clear idea about what a photon is as well, because nobody has so far, no matter how much quantum mechanics of photons you know and how many works you have published about it. I do that on my lectures of QM as well, and it is not hard at all. But meanwhile, if you feel like trying to think by yourself, I invite you to give me a refutation with your brilliant mind, concerning the physical arguments exposed in my work "Classical electrodynamics can violate Bell's theorem", apart from saying I am crackpot, which, of course, I totally am. Since I was born. Anyway, I won't say you that you are centered and practical fool, and simply keep open my invitation! Alvaro12Lopez (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

When I was young I wasted a lot of time reading the works of Bell deniers and arguing with them. Not anymore. If they could be reasoned with, they wouldn't be Bell deniers in the first place. And it's anyway not my job to teach basic physics to random people around the world. I'm paid to do research, and teach basic physics to the students in my university. You should take the hint, though. If everyone is telling you that you're wrong, it's not because everyone else is stupid, close-minded, centred, and practical fools. It's because you're wrong. We're not in the Renaissance anymore, and you're not the second coming of Galileo. Tercer (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Tercer, hahaha

Childish behaviour is well-known to you, huh?

I merely corrected your mistake. I don't see what's childish about that. Tercer (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Dear Tercer

Kindly think before you revert my edit. For E₁ = E₃ = E₄ = 1 all 4 detectors must be in complete agreement. Therefore E₂ = 1 and not −1 as you claim. If you are still in any doubt please call an adjudicator. MRFS (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

No, they don't. They refer to different experimental settings, measured at different times. In the first round Alice and Bob measure E1. For that flip a coin, and their results agree, so E1 = 1. In the second round they measure E4. Again they flip coins, which by chance agree, so E4=1. In the third round they measure E2. By chance the coins disagree, so E2 = -1. See? Even flipping uncorrelated coins can reach 4, nothing magical about that. It's just unlikely. In any case, this doesn't change WP:NOTFORUM. Wikipedia talk pages are not the place to argue about basic quantum mechanics. For that you can try the various StackExchange sites, or Reddit AskScience, or any of the dozens of discussion sites around. Tercer (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Quantum Supremacy Edits

Good morning Tercer,

I have been editing the Quantum Supremacy Wikipedia article and noticed that you removed the section on the Travelling Salesman Problem. After reviewing my source more thoroughly, I have realized that I was making some assumptions in my edit that were not completely backed up by the article. This is the source I was using: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11128-019-2206-9. I think that you would probably find this to be an interesting read. A lower bound for the time complexity of solving the travelling salesman problem in a quantum framework is given. The appendices even postulate that this lower bound could be saturated under the right conditions, implying that this could be an efficient solution to the problem.

I think that it is important to mention that solving an NP-complete problem (and proving P=NP) in a quantum framework would establish quantum supremacy. This is a paragraph that I have come up with to add instead to the proposed experiments section:

P=NP

Solving any problem in the NP-Complete problem set efficiently (and proving P=NP) by quantum means would display the supremacy of quantum technology over that of classical technology. If a solution for one problem in this problem set is found, then that solution can be extended to every other problem in the set. For one discrete example, take the Travelling Salesman Problem. The problem is as follows: find the shortest possible path between a set of N cities such that each city is visited only once and the path begins and ends in the same location. In it's most general form, the TSP is classified as an NP-Complete problem. The problem is set up so that there is a cost associated with each city which is representative of the distance the salesman must take to get from one city to another. The goal of the problem is to minimize this cost. The Big O time-complexity of the most general version of this problem has been shown to be O(N!). This value demonstrates that the time to complete the problem will increase at a rate with a factorial dependence on the input size. This makes the problem nearly impossible to solve classically for large values of N. This set-up is analogous to all of the other problems in the NP-Complete problem set. Algorithms to solve this problem have been constructed in quantum frameworks, but more rigorous analysis into the time-complexity of such algorithms would need to be done before they could be said to be efficient. If these algorithms could one day be run efficiently on quantum systems, not only would quantum supremacy be achieved, but P=NP (a problem that has plagued computer scientists for years) would be proven.

Let me know what you think of this. Maybe the middle section could be edited slightly to cut down on the explanation of the travelling salesman problem and maybe the end could talk more about the proven lower bound from the paper I cited earlier? Just some thoughts. Let me know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcatalano26 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Good evening Mcatalano. The fundamental problem is that there is no reason to think that quantum computers can solve the TSP efficiently. On the contrary, there's plenty of reasons to think it can not. Your source gives only a lower bound on complexity, this does not imply efficiency, the author only hopes that the bound is achievable, he cannot provide any evidence to why it should be. This is nothing new. The very first paper that proposed adiabatic quantum computation [1] had a similar hope, that was destroyed by further analysis on the size of the spectral gap. It is not proven to be impossible, as we cannot prove anything in complexity theory, but we can do the next best thing: prove with oracles that the best speed-up quantum computers can provide for NP-Complete problems is the square-root speed-up provided by Grover's algorithm. See here [2] for an informal version of the argument. Also, if quantum computers could solve NP-Complete problems, it would prove that BQP=NP, not that P=NP (a proof that P=NP would make quantum computing irrelevant). Tercer (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I see now what you are saying. Thank you for your help. Mcatalano26 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad to have helped. Tercer (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Polar form of Dirac Equation

Dear Tercer, is it possible to know why you reverted my two additions to the Dirac equation and the de Broglie-Bohm theory? The additions were minimal, sound and backed-up by references.

Thanks for letting me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luca-Spinor-Torsion (talk • contribs) 14:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the edit summaries, I removed the edits because you were adding citations to your own papers. This is not allowed. See WP:COI and WP:REFSPAM. I also added a remark about it in the WikiProject_Physics, pinging you. Tercer (talk) 14:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The Quantum mechanics article

Feel like working on a top-to-bottom rewrite of the quantum mechanics page? I'm starting to think it needs one. XOR'easter (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm in. Lately I have been doing only janitorial work, going back to content will be good for my spirits. Tercer (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The "overview" and "mathematical formulation" sections seem to overlap in what they talk about, and the "relation to other scientific theories" section is a junk drawer divided into four smaller junk drawers. Thoughts on how to proceed? XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I've finished reading most of it. What a huge article! I'm rather unhappy with the overview section. It's rather long, gives too much detail, and it's a weird mixture of mathematical statements with hand-wavy explanations. It has some bizarre deductions like Every basis vector may have different values of these, so position and momentum must be defined as linear operators in quantum mechanics, having different results on different basis vectors. and This relation is identical to the one found in Fourier transform, so that a description of an object according to its momentum is the Fourier transform of its description according to its position.. I'm feeling like I had magic mushrooms.

The section "Mathematical formulation" is a bit better, as it doesn't try to give these pseudo-derivations. An indeed, as you noted it is mostly redundant with the overview section. I'm just flabbergasted about the complete absence of any mathematics here, or indeed in almost the whole article. Isn't this supposed to be the technical article on quantum mechanics? This section has only descriptions of mathematical concepts in words, which even though mostly precise I think makes it much harder to understand than normal mathematics.

The section "Relation to other scientific theories" is full of garbage, I admit, but I think this is an important topic and should be there.

The way I would reorganize the artice is 1 - Overview (much shorter and informal), 2 - Relation to other scientific theories, 3 - Mathematical formulation (including actual mathematics), 4 - Examples (removing some lame potentials and including the Mach-Zehnder interferometer), 5 - Applications, 6 - Philosophical implications (haven't read it yet), 7 - History.

What do you think?Tercer (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

My guess is that the technicality level got diluted by many people making small additions because they wanted to say something about quantum mechanics and didn't take the time to consider whether another article would be a more appropriate place. I don't have any serious issues with your proposed ordering, though I wonder if "relation to other scientific theories" would fit better between "applications" and "philosophical implications" (which is about interpretations). Currently, the "Relation" section jumps around a lot, but there's a thread in it that goes from QED to QCD, electroweak theory, Grand Unification and quantum gravity. That progression towards the esoteric and speculative might make a good transition between "applications" and the philosophical talk. I'd kind of prefer talking more about what quantum physics itself is before relating it to other things, if that makes any sense. But I don't have strong preferences about any of these things, really. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

My reasoning is that "Relation to other scientific theories" gives context to quantum mechanics, so it fits well close to overview, before we dive into quantum mechanics itself. But I don't feel strongly about it, we might as well leave it between applications and philosophy. Tercer (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, the article is moving towards adequacy — thanks! I started throwing ideas for what I feel an "overview" section should have into a sandbox page. I'm trying to find the tone I want in the process of writing, so nothing is definitive. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, I moved the "Overview" text until after "Mathematical formulation" (it still needs cutting, but maybe not entirely?) and slotted in a new overview that builds up to the statement "hey, you really do need to learn math". XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I've skimmed through the new overview, it's a massive improvement over the previous version. There are some rough edges I want to polish (the talk about complex numbers and the Born rule is rather awkward). The old overview is a bit redundant with the rest of mathematical formulation, a lot of cutting is still needed. But that's for tomorrow, now I'm going to sleep. Tercer (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for going over it. There's probably still tightening to do in various places, and the addition of Mach–Zehnder to the examples section, but the article is definitely moving towards adequacy. XOR'easter (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely improved, but there's still a lot of work to do. The subsections "Measurement" and "Unitarity" are still largely redundant, and I haven't gone through sections 5, 6, and 7 at all. Maybe there are dragons there. As for the example, I was hoping to copy some content from Mach–Zehnder interferometer, but there's nothing useful there, so I'll have to do it the hard way. Tercer (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

EP Quantum Mechanics

Dear Tercer, to check the papers and citations concerning "EP Quantum Mechanics" please see https://inspirehep.net/literature?sort=mostrecent&size=25&page=1&q=a%20faraggi%20and%20matone&ui-citation-summary=true and https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=8244678585560532218&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.162.110.99 (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The first link is a list of the papers that cite "The equivalence postulate of quantum mechanics", and the second link is a list of papers by Faraggi and Matone. Neither shows that "EP quantum mechanics" is notable, or that it even exists. It is anyway clear that none of these references use the expression "EP quantum mechanics". The actual subject seems to be the derivation of a quantum version of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation from a version of the equivalence principle. Tercer (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Born rule#Wave Function vs "State Function"

It's like that "unitarity" discussion all over again.... XOR'easter (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Obvious WP:OR. I'll keep an eye on it. Tercer (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation of the double-slit experiment

Thank you for removing this whole section. This interpretation of the double-slit experiment is indeed ridiculous and the research of this paper Radin, Dean; Michel, Leena; Galdamez, Karla; Wendland, Paul; Rickenbach, Robert; Delorme, Arnaud (2012). "Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments". Physics Essays. 25 (2): 157–171. doi:10.4006/0836-1398-25.2.157. ISSN 0836-1398. is doubtful, to say the least. It still makes me wonder why a lamp (cf. Fig. 3) was a necessary component in the closed double-steel-walled, electromagnetically shielded chamber in which they conducted their "measurements" on open-minded, meditation experienced subjects "instructed" by a PC to focus their attention on the HeNe laser light (632.8 nm) for 15 s "epochs".

Having said that, Physics Essays is not widely criticized as a garbage journal, as you claim, and the list of entities (Bial Foundation, the Fetzer-Franklin Fund of the John E. Fetzer Memorial Trust, the Mental Insight Foundation, the Federico and Elvia Faggin Foundation, and the HESA Institute, among others) that supported this "research" is impressive.

Guswen (talk) 07:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciated it. Physics Essays does publish a lot of nonsense, see here. Tercer (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not the question of "gladness". I supported the motion to mark Physics Essays as an unreliable journal, that you hinted. Guswen (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Physics Essays has returned to reliability (?) Guswen (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean? Tercer (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I cannot longer find the page User_talk:Headbomb/unreliable#Physics_Essays, where you hinted that Physics Essays does publish a lot of nonsense, and the Wikipedia article about this journal does not seem to indicate that its reliability could be questioned. Guswen (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It was archived: User_talk:Headbomb/unreliable/Archive_1#Physics_Essays. Tercer (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. But Physics Essays is not listed here. Or am I missing something again? Guswen (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

It is listed [3] [4]. Tercer (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and apologize for wasting your time for these explanations. Guswen (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem, you're welcome. Tercer (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Int. J. Theor. Phys.

Offhand, do you know of some place where the quality (or lack thereof) of Int. J. Theor. Phys. might have been discussed "on the record"? They don't seem to have much of a filter, for sure, having given space to Tipler's Omega Point [5] and more recently to El Naschie and acolytes [6][7]. But the wisdom about which journals exercise quality control and which don't isn't always written down. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I was just trying to find such a thing, probably with the same goal as you. Didn't find much. There was a massive plagiarism scandal [8], with some of the papers published in IJTP, that didn't care and left them up. They also published some nonsense by Tipler [9]. But yeah, it's very frustrating that this is the kind of wisdom passed from supervisor to student that is nowhere to be found publicly. It makes it much harder to explain why IJTP is unreliable. Tercer (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Another example: [10]. Come for the credulous golden-ratio hype, stay for the reinvention of exponential decay, and stay even longer for the exponential decay magically becoming linear. XOR'easter (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I'd ever heard of Physics Procedia before, but it looks darn iffy [11]. XOR'easter (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust it to say the sky is blue. Where did you encounter it? Tercer (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Over in nuclear photonic rocket [12], which I found via the VARIES deletion discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Fyi to participate in this debate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Kepler_exoplanet_candidates_in_the_habitable_zone#Merger_proposal

The candidate KOI-4878.01 has been regarded as a 'a potentially exciting Earth-sized planet' here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.07286.pdf (here published: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0067-0049/217/1/16)

Also in this book as the one with the highest ESI: https://books.google.es/books?id=UNA1DwAAQBAJ&q=KOI4878&pg=PT76&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=KOI4878&f=false

An the exoplanet is the main scenario of this sci-fi book: https://www.unoeditorial.com/portfolio/tras-el-cielo-de-urano/

KOI-4878.01 has also been cited by several reliable secondary sources sucha as the Huffingtonpost.

This is the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KOI-4878.01 , which it's an independent page in most Wikipedia languages.

It is for these reasons why several editors including me believe that it should not be merged (leaving aside all the time we have spent improving the article).

Anyway, thank you for your time! Cheers. ExoEditor 17:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion has already been closed. Tercer (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Planck units

In cleaning up things that pointed to Physics Essays, I culled some material from Planck units, and I rediscovered how crufty that article is. There's a lot of low-grade material out there, thanks to people who are eager to derive grand conclusions from simple dimensional analysis, and to the lack of interest among physicists for writing definitive references on marginal topics. Do you know of any particularly good reading on the topic — and, on the flipside, what in the article strikes you as needing deletion first? XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't know of a good reference. I removed some crap, but left alone the difficult parts, where legitimate information is embedded in nonsensical text. The one that annoyed me the most is the last paragraph of this subsection. The article seems to be written by people who love Planck units but don't really understand physics. Tercer (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, that's a good way to put it. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking of merging the "History" and "Definition" sections into something like this. There's a lot of excess detail and what looks like WP:OR in the current text, like citing papers which just compute a Planck charge scale and passing them off as establishing an actual system of base units. Also, I'm iffy on the Deza and Deza Encyclopedia of Distances, which looks like a pile of miscellaneous factoids. XOR'easter (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's mostly fine. A couple of sentences became obscure due to the shortening:

1. Planck's paper also gave numerical values for the base units that were close to modern values, although they differed by a factor of ${\sqrt {2\pi }}$ from the Planck units in use today. This is due to the use of the reduced Planck constant (ℏ) in the modern units, which did not appear in the original proposal. This kind of a Pretzel, and doesn't make it clear that the point is just h versus hbar.
2. Moreover, one Planck length divided by one Planck time is equal exactly to... In context this is illustrating that combinations of Planck units that do not depend on G or $\epsilon _{0}$ are exact, it would be better to state this rather than leaving it as an isolated factoid.

This Encyclopedia of Distances doesn't look like the height of scientific literature, but harmless enough, I don't see a problem with it. Tercer (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Good catches, thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quantum mechanics

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Quantum mechanics you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ján Kepler -- Ján Kepler (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quantum mechanics

The article Quantum mechanics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Quantum mechanics for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ján Kepler -- Ján Kepler (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK

Are you, or @XOR'easter: going to nominate Quantum Mechanics to WP:DYK? It will be great to have this physics article on the main page. Polyamorph (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hum, good idea, maybe I should. I just need to think of a good hook. The difficulty is that the article is so broad, most hooks I think of would be better suited to one of the more specific articles. Tercer (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be particularly quirky, simply something along the lines of "Quantum mechanics provides a description of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles." sourced to the reference given in the first line of the lead. Polyamorph (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

We could do something more appealing. Such as "the principles of quantum mechanics have been shown to apply to complex molecules with thousands of atoms", using Ref. [4]. Tercer (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good! If you need any help filing the DYK nomination, let me know. It should be done within a week of the GA review. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, it's done, hope it's right [13]. Tercer (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Cool! Polyamorph (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Quantum mechanics

Hello! Your submission of Quantum mechanics at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mike Peel (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Density matrix

I took a stab at reorganizing density matrix, and I think it reads somewhat better now. Its monthly page view count breaks 12,000 [14], which is not that much less than Bell's theorem at ~17,000. Maybe improving density matrix would be a good next target? (Less of a minefield than editing the other, anyway...) My wiki-time is limited these days, but if all I do is try to keep fringe content out, I won't be having any fun at all. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Density matrix is a good target, the article is important and there's a lot to improve. I had in mind tackling quantum state, but I kind of got distracted with all the craziness hunting. I'll take a look. Tercer (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Quantum mechanics

On 13 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Quantum mechanics, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the principles of quantum mechanics have been demonstrated to hold for complex molecules with thousands of atoms? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Quantum mechanics. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Quantum mechanics), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the point you made at SPI

Having become confused I put the best solution I was able, based upon your advice, to the investigation. Your addition was extremely helpful. I'll be interested in the overall outcome or outcomes.

As a side issue, WP:ACADEME applies in this whole arena. I suppose we ought to bring it to the attention of the socks/meats, but something I failed to find the enthusiasm to do so Fiddle Faddle 17:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was just a minor confusion, the clerk managed to clear everything up in the end. Thanks for taking the initiative to start the SPI in the first place, we shouldn't just let it be, specially in the case of Mechanothermodynamics which seems to be WP:UPE. As for WP:ACADEME, I think it is besides the point as it seems everybody will get an indefinite ban anyway. Tercer (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

sourcing removal

I feel you're editing pretty blindly here. For example, in [15], all these sources are fine (expert website, 2 conference proceedings), gen-ph was left behind [16], and you've caused an error here.

This not the only instance where you seem to simply be removing everything sourced to gen-ph. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't do it blindly. I took at look at the paper, it is really bizarre, and I did notice that these are conference proceedings, but they are usually unrefereed, and in particular this was a Ball Lightning conference, which is specially unreliable. I did miss the other references to the same crazyness, and thus generated the error, thanks for pointing it out. Tercer (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Citing

In your change to Space Elevator, you made a couple of edits in the form For a constant-stress cable with no safety margin, the cross-section-area as a function of distance from Earth's center is given by<ref name="aravind" />. That results in "given by", which is an incomplete statement in text - grammatically problematic. In a number of contexts, only the text will be available, the annotations will not, so the statement will be impossible to interpret. A better form for this particular one would have been:

For a constant-stress cable with no safety margin, the equation to calculate the cross-section-area as a function of distance from Earth's center:

In that form, the citation is available if the reader wants to pursue who said it, but the text statement is complete without needing it. If you really feel the need to identify the citation in text, it would be better to do something like an APA citation ... Earth's center (Aravind 2007:).

That's quite rare in Wikipedia, we prefer the citations be entirely in the footnotes. The text itself should be primarily explanatory, and the rare cases where it's important to make clear in the text who provides some information are usually handled with According to Aravind, for a .... That's clumsy and usually only comes into play when strongly partisan opinions are contraste, and/or a statement is intended to be disparaged by identifying a questionable author. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 17:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

What I meant is that the cross-section is given by the equation, not by the reference. I just put the reference there to make it clear where the equation came from. Similarly, in the next case, I meant that the taper ratio is given by the table. Although I must admit that this was unclear, I'll reformulate it. Tercer (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that the construct "given by" is a problem. When you give a citation, you are specifying that this is where the information comes from. You don't say "given by" followed by no text. If absolutely necessary to specify that it comes from a specific source, you need to use a construct that conveys the information in text. You can't have text be continued into the reference. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

References

What I'm saying is that the text is not continued into the reference, it is continued into the equation. Tercer (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah. Now I understand what you are trying to do. What that should be, then, is "given by the following equation.(reference)". Either that, or put the reference on the equation itself. References are generally at the end of a sentence, and by having it at the end of a line, the way it reads is that you intend the reference to be the end of sentence. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought it was clear enough, but the fact that you misunderstood it shows that it wasn't. I rephrased it as you wanted. I never put references on the equations themselves, because that makes them even harder to read. Tercer (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Optical conductivity

• Optical conductivity (AfD discussion)

I've checked this out with Materialscientist and I leave it with you. I have to go and do something else for Drmies. Uncle G (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Saw your mentione on the article Discussion page. you probably thinking that how this new account is doing so advance stuff. (i should probably put this on my user page) i was game developer for Gameloft i have recently left my job to work on a indi project with my friends and i have a special ability to pick stuff up and curiosity to learn everything quickly so that why you probably suspicious on me about how i know all this stuff. Thanks Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 14:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It is possible. Most likely, though, you are an experienced editor using a new account. Tercer (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Nah i have an old account created like probably 5 years ago and i have made like 400 edits probably but can't remember the username it was on my old iphone. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 14:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You need to disclose that on your user page, otherwise people will assume that you are using another account for illegitimate purposes like sockpuppeting or ban evasion. It's easy to find out what your old username was, just look at the edit history of any page you edited with your old account. Tercer (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok Thanks. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 04:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Bohr–Einstein debates

• Bohr–Einstein debates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A fair amount of new content was added the other day. If you have a spare moment (ha ha, who has those anymore), you might check it out. XOR'easter (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I skimmed through the new stuff, and really don't like it. The language used is caricatural. I don't have time to engage with it properly, though, I'm sorry. Tercer (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Schwarzschild radius

Man, what is it with Planck units? XOR'easter (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, they are cool. Put yourself in the 19th century mentality, where units were still based on arbitrary physical artifacts, and then comes Planck, and shows one can make them from fundamental constants of nature, without even referencing specific materials (I wonder whether he would accept making them from properties of elementary particles, if he knew about those). People seem to think their significance is much deeper, though. Tercer (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible proto-guideline for reliable sourcing in physics and mathematics

I've learned that over the years, there have been sporadic efforts to get a guideline for reliable sourcing on scientific topics off the ground, basically by cloning WP:MEDRS. These have never gotten very far; see WP:SCIRS and the discussions in the archives from 2010 and 2019(!). I had the thought that it might be simpler to advance something with narrower scope, so I started working up math-and-physics-specific advice here. I'm not sure if this is the right path to follow, but it does seem like having something along these lines would be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Please notice that WP:reliable sources are not to be removed from wikipedia. Once research is peer-reviewed and accepted by the scientific community, it doesn't really matter who adds it to Wikipedia. In other words, reliable sources and neutral statements must not be removed with the criterion of WP:PROMOTION PhysicsVoice (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

It definitely does matter who adds it. See WP:SELFCITE. It's a clear conflict of interest. Since you're adding the same citation to several pages, it is also considered citation spam, see WP:CITESPAM. Tercer (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

Thanks again. Let it be highlighted that citation spamming is the "illegitimate" or "improper" use. "It should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia"PhysicsVoice (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

Indeed, and what we have here is obviously improper use, not a good-faith addition. Tercer (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Your wrong judgment and unsubstantiated perspective violates WP:Assume_good_faith. No further discussion with you. Period! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhysicsVoice (talk • contribs) 20:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Take a break, they said. Work on obscure subjects that nobody gets invested in, they said. And then. No wonder I'm so burned out on this place. XOR'easter (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

My advice is to let janitorial work to other people. I really appreciate your help, but it seems you are sacrificing your own well-being. Don't worry, there are plenty of people that can do clean up, Wikipedia won't fall apart if you focus on the parts that you find fun. Tercer (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Would you believe that this is me scaling back? I purged my watchlist, stopped checking AfD, etc. My goal right now is a rewrite of Newton's laws of motion, because it is important, highly trafficked, and better-defined than completely amorphous topics where we have no hope of crafting a decent article. The current page is not in great shape, for the same reasons that so many pages aren't in great shape. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a good target for improvement. It is important, in a bad state, and has very little potential for drama. Tercer (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, the pandemic is keeping me out of my office, and so the selection of books I can pull off the shelf is limited. I could probably do work on Bell's theorem with what I have lying around, but the traffic there is lower and the potential for drama much higher. XOR'easter (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bell's theorem is what I have always wanted to do, and always postponed it because I wasn't in the mood to fight. Well, right now I'm going crazy with the end of the semester so I won't be able to do anything. Tercer (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Visualization in Independence

Sorry, but you deleted "12:55, 5 February 2022‎ Tercer talk contribs‎ 26,094 bytes −1,192‎ Undid revision 1069924568 by Msvex (talk) removing self-promotion thank Tag: Undo " I wrote about an very important context in Independence regarding its visualization that is widely applied in statistical practices. This can be found in referred publications. If you could restore the previous version, it will be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msvex (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments at the bottom of talk pages and sign them with four tildes ~~~~. I can't look at what your edit was, it has been removed from the history of the page as well, but I removed it because you were adding a citation to Albert Vexler, which is the only thing you ever do in Wikipedia. Please note that Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own work. Tercer (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

~~~~ Dear Tercer, if I referred and linked to Vexler then that does not say "Visualization in Independence" and other fields have no chance to be valuable. Pls stop judging.

The four tildes should be added at the end of your comment and without the "nowiki" tags. The problem is that the only thing you do is cite Vexler, indicating that you are here to promote his work rather than build an encyclopedia. See WP:NOTHERE, WP:COI, and WP:SELFCITE. Tercer (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry again, but texts with the citations were done by me and the title "Visualization in Independence" and then deleted by you. Thanks 00:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msvex (talk • contribs)

There is also a Wikipedia article on a certain Albert Vexler which appears to be a personal vanity project of the same person. It has occasionally been edited by user Msvex. Richard Gill (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, we should AfD it as well, it has been edited almost exclusively by WP:SPAs. Tercer (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

What is “AfD”? I think you are a greater Wikipedia expert than me. Richard Gill (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion. If you think an article does not belong in Wikipedia, you propose it for AfD, where it is discussed and maybe deleted. Since you're not familiar with it I created the proposal myself, here. Tercer (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Richard Gill (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Planck units and Planck length

I was doing some deferred maintenance on Planck units and Planck length, and now I'm not so sure we need two separate pages. I think Planck length is the last survivor of a population of separate pages that now redirect to Planck units (like Planck time, which has been a redirect since May 2020). The sections of Planck length are "Value", "History", and "Theoretical significance", which are all redundant with the main article; and "Planck length and Euclidean geometry", which just spells out the heuristic calculations alluded to in the previous section in (maybe undue) detail. Thoughts? XOR'easter (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about that; the Planck length page doesn't have nonsense that needs to be removed. I checked the calculations in the "Planck length and Euclidean geometry" section, and they're legit. Not terribly insightful, but probably WP:DUE for an article specifically about the Planck length. Moreover, there are interesting things to be said about it, such as the difficulty of implementing it as an actual minimal length due to Lorenz covariance. So live and let live. Tercer (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Kepler problem in Pedal coordinates

Hi, I wonder why you have removed the section in Kepler problem about the solution in Pedal coordinates in August 2021. I do find this solution to be not only the quickest and easiest (since it requires basically only algebra) but also quite novel. Do you oppose the solution or the fact that I (the author) am writing about it. I am asking only so I understand the rules around here. PetrBlaschke (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Only the fact that you, the author, is the one writing about it. Wikipedia has several policies against scientists promoting their own work. The idea is that the promotion should happen through the usual channels (papers, conference talks, textbooks), and if the community picks it up, then it is worth including in Wikipedia. On the other hand, if nobody but the author cares about some result or technique, it means it's not relevant enough to be covered in Wikipedia. Tercer (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. PetrBlaschke (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Łukaszyk–Karmowski metric

The deletion review has finally been closed, with the statement Allow speedy renomination due to deficiencies in the AfD process. I'm not sure I'll have the will today to wade back into that... XOR'easter (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I nominated it again. I can't let this stand. It's being ridiculous that Wikipedia should be used for self-promotion of a piece of incorrect mathematics. Tercer (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Organizing Bell's theorem/LHV content

I noticed you moved some material from Bell's theorem to Bell test. If you're in the mood for further reorganization in that corner, what do you think about the article Local hidden-variable theory? The title suggests it would be a subtopic of Hidden-variable theory, but the content reads like a fork of Bell's theorem. XOR'easter (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think they are logically independent; hidden-variable theories have the remarkable advantage of existing, whereas local hidden-variable theories only show up as a hypothesis to be falsified. Hence why hidden-variable theories have been developed to cover non-relativistic quantum mechanics, while local hidde-variable theories never go beyond contrived models for some correlations. That said, one could definitely improve Local hidden-variable theory; indeed it mostly covers the same material as Bell's theorem, but poorly. One could for example show the LHV model Bell did for the EPR correlations. Tercer (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, that would be a better match of title and content. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Tercer (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)