Talk:Fundamental Fysiks Group

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

SYN[edit]

Hi, could you say what you mean about the disputed sentence being a SYN violation? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Kaiser says the group kept an interest in fundamentals alive, and he mentions quantum information science (although that term needs disambiguating), but he doesn't say "the group's meetings and newsletters helped to advance and keep alive the alternative ideas in quantum physics that came to form the basis of quantum information science" (if he did, you would be able to quote a specific page where it is said). In particular, nowhere in Kaiser's book does he show that the ideas which they kept alive included the ideas that came to form the basis of quantum information science (it would take a history of quantum information science to show that). -- 202.124.75.72 (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
He doesn't use those words, but that is his very clear argument, both in his book and his lecture. That this group, and the newsletter, and other alternative publications nurtured the ideas that form the basis of quantum information science. His books opens with an example, so I'm not really sure what your objection is. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
When you say "that is his very clear argument", you mean WP:SYNTH is needed to extract it. In fact, he is arguing that keeping the fundamentals alive "saved physics," but he doesn't actually connect any specific ideas discussed by the FFG with "quantum information science," nor does he argue that the foundations of "quantum information science" are "alternative" in any sense. I think the article should go with what he actually says. -- 202.124.75.72 (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
You're misinterpreting SYN, and it doesn't sound as though you've read Kaiser's book.
The book is about the Fundamental Physics Group and the scientists and financiers they persuaded to help them. He writes (p xiff):
"These days quantum information science sports a multi-billion dollar research program ... the field has leaped to the cutting edge of physics ...
"The tremendous excitement marks the tail end of a long-simmering Cinderella story ... the field smoldered on the scientific sidelines ... During the middle decades of the twentieth century, most physicists recoiled from such philosophical labor. They treated the interpretation of quantum theory as a fringe topic ... Thirty years ago, readers who were interested ... had to hunt in some out of the way places. In 1979, some of the most extensive coverage appeared in an unpublished memorandum from the Central Intelligence Agency and a feature article in Oui magazine. ... Both items focused on work by physicists at the center of this story. ...
"The intellectual bedrock of quantum information science ... took form in a setting that couldn't have been more different from the ivory tower of academe ... In fact, the breakthroughs in Vienna and Geneva [the banks using quantum cryptography] ultimately owe their origins to the hazy, bong-filled excesses of the 1970s New Age movement. Many of the ideas that now occupy the core of quantum information science once found their home amid an anything-goes counterculture frenzy, a mishmash of spoon-bending psychics, Eastern mysticism, LSD trips, CIA spooks chasing mind-reading dreams ..."
And so on. Then in the next few pages he introduces the members of the Fundamental Fysiks Group. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
You could address the conflict very easily with words like "David Kaiser writes that the ideas discussed by the group formed the intellectual bedrock of modern quantum information science" -- that wording would be solidly supported by the given citation. -- 202.124.74.59 (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Group Name[edit]

The group was called "Fundamental Fysiks Group." I'm not sure why the correction was reverted. -- 202.124.75.72 (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I know Kaiser uses that term only, but when I last checked more sources used the ordinary spelling. I'll do another check later. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The question is: what did the group call itself? -- 202.124.75.72 (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I've seen its members use both spellings. I was thinking of emailing some of them to ask what they used at the time. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • "Fundamental Physics Group"
  • Google: 387,000 results
  • Google Books: 20
  • "Fundamental Fysiks Group"
  • Google: 26,700
  • Google Books: 2

SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 02:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking around some more, I think you're right: the early refs do use Fysiks, so I've moved it for now. We can always move it back if anyone objects. Just noting here that I had to use the tools to move it because I had already created and edited the target page as a redirect, so I had to delete it to make the move. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Mostly one source[edit]

Most of this article appears to be based on a book by someone called David Kaiser. What gives the book any due weight? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fundamental Fysiks Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)