User talk:Albester

Welcome to Wikipedia Albester. I saw that you added quite a bit of information to the Pinwheel Galaxy. I hope you'll contribute further to astronomical articles on Wikipedia. Thanks and keep up the good work.--Kalsermar 20:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kalsermar thank you for your kind words of encouragement. You are correct, I am new to Wikipedia, and I feel humbled to be allowed to make my own little contributions here and there! Albester 12:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light pollution adjustments

No problem -- thanks for adding the comprehensive section in the first place. I'd hardly call what you wrote "horribly phrased". I just thought it might help for the article flow to adjust the intro slightly. (Hope you don't mind.) Izogi 07:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum mechanics

Secondly, feel free to improve any and all articles you may come across in Wikipedia, including Quantum mechanics. Don't let whether or not it's a FA deter you from improving it. If it loses FA status and you then improve it to FA status again, it will again become a FA. However, the point about POVs in Physics is not as simple as you say. The mathematical and theoretical parts are not always neatly laid down gardens, so debates are eternally ongoing, even on established theories such as Special relativity. Even in Physics, there is no objective truth (yes, I'm an antirealist/subjective realist). That is why things should be sourced.

As for interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, these come at many levels. At one level, almost everyone accepts the statistical interpretation. But at another level of interpretations, there's a slew of competing ones such as the Copenhagen, many-worlds, consistent histories, environmental decoherence, pilot wave and others. But at the level of detail required in a Wikipedia article, I think all relevant information can sourced from textbooks like Shankar and Sakurai. Best of luck working on the article. Incidentally, are you a professional physicist? Loom91 09:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can be considered one, I recently graduated in theoretical physics and am working on my PhD now. Of course you are correct about the POV. What I meant is that its the mathematical basis that should be the starting point of everything, the common ground everyone agrees on (I'm talking 'conventional' physics of course, not cutting edge where nothing is certain). The rest is merely interpretation, that is not to say that is not important, but rather when a certain interpretation as broad as Born's statistical one or the Copenhagen interpretation, how must I source it? A reference to the original article in which Born or Bohr put forth their interpretations is very nice I think.

My approach to physics articles is to put the physics to the fore as best as possible, and then follow up on the various interpretations, if any, and explain them. In any case, my primary concern was with correcting factual inaccuracies and I will do so :) Albester 11:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]