User talk:Tercer

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply] 

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {2\pi }}}$ 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 ${\displaystyle \epsilon _{0}}$ 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^[1]", 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:^[2]

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:^[3]).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The point I'm making is that the construct "given by^[4]" 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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).[reply]

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).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~~~ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Thanks for this revert. The two additional papers don't even cite the one they were being invoked to support. And the statement Furthermore, non-local effects are independent of quantum contextuality was cited to a paper that calls contextuality a generalization of nonlocality that manifests also for single systems. XOR'easter (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The three papers are unrelated, I don't see why anybody would want to cite them in the same sentence. I also see no relation with possibilistic nonlocality, why would that paragraph belong there? I'm afraid we have a WP:CIR problem. Tercer (talk) Tercer (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again... I suppose that this might be tipping over into OR territory, but that Nature Communications paper says some things which are just weird. Like, In this case, we can detect and observe three-photon interference by tuning the phase of the fourth photon, which is undetected. This finding shows the effect that one has non-local quantum interference that does not require entangled states. For entangled states, such as a Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger(GHZ) state^29,30, one would lose correlation when losing one particle. Is the W state just chopped liver? XOR'easter (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Nature Communications paper has an unhealthy amount of bullshit (which is pretty much required to get published there), but the physics is legit. The effect is the same one as here: you do change the statistics of the detected photons by applying a phase to the undetected photon. The trick is, you interfere the undetected photon with the detected ones before discarding. Which brings into question whether it makes sense to call them different photons after all, as being indistinguishable is a hard requirement for interference. I like the effect, in any case, it makes it possible to image something at wavelength y while having a camera only for wavelength x.

What matters for Wikipedia is that there is a simple local hidden variable model for that experiment, so it's not nonlocality as defined in quantum nonlocality. Even this is going to far, we generally don't allow primary sources precisely to let the physics community decide whether that really counts as nonlocality.

As for this "entanglement disappears when losing a particle", this is obviously wrong. The only question in my mind is whether it is malice or incompetence. Tercer (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess incompetence, i.e., people not quite knowing what they're writing about and reviewers not knowing better or caring to read closely if they do. XOR'easter (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say you are a theoretical physicist. So, explain to me what error in physics Dr. Johan Hansson made in his proof of superdeterminism, such that you considered it necessary to erase my edit to the topic Superdeterminism, ScooterMcGruff (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to waste my time reading that paper. Tercer (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, you refuse to even read the paper before you make a judgment on its merits? ScooterMcGruff (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's how Wikipedia works. It doesn't rely on the expert judgement of the editors, who are anonymous and might be lying about their qualifications. Instead, it relies on the reliability of the sources. Tercer (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Essays is a reliable source as stated by Wikipedia. Physics Essays - Wikipedia

It is a peer-reviewed physics journal included in the Emerging Sources Citation Index. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of supposedly peer-reviewed journals regularly publish nonsense. Physics Essays is one of them. I've removed articles published in it countless times from Wikipedia. It's so unreliable that's even marked by WP:UPSD. Tercer (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your grounds for dismissing a publication as unreliable, when it appears on the Emerging Sources Citation Index, which produced since 2015 by Thomson Reuters and now by Clarivate. According to the publisher, the index includes "peer-reviewed publications of regional importance and in emerging scientific fields". ScooterMcGruff (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a computer expert look at the script and they told me it was inoperable broken script. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's included in the ESCI, which is famously loved by predatory and crackpot journals, and not in more serious indexes like Web of Science. Independent of indexes, one could also just take a look at its homepage. Displayed prominently there is the recently published Einstein’s relativity falsified: I. The factor c can take values larger than √2, which requires a speed of light < c in moving inertial frames. If this journal is peer-reviewed then the peers live in a madhouse. Tercer (talk) 07:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The unreliable.js script does not work. Explain to me how you got that script to run for Physics Essays. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could not run the unreliable.js script to confirm your claim that Physics Essays is marked unreliable. Explain to me exactly how to run the unreliable script on my page, so that I can check your claim. The script is installed on my page, but there is not instructions whatsoever on how to use it. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a computer expert look at the script and they told me it was inoperable broken script. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's an obvious lie. The script works fine, and it's not my job to teach you how to install it. It's explained in the link I gave you. Tercer (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScooterMcGruff has been blocked as a sockpuppet. XOR'easter (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I had completely forgotten I had already removed exactly the same citespam before. Tercer (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tercer why do you keep erasing my references and undoing my changes in the Iberian Union if it is clearly stated that the two parties agreed to become independent one from the other in the Treaty of Lisbon 1668. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not only me, but also Sumanuil and Sam Sailor have undone your edits. And another editor has blocked you from editing. Have you considered the possibility that you might have done something wrong? Tercer (talk)

Over the years I've made a few minor edits to Wikipedia anonymously but never created an account until now. This is my first major edit. Why are you going to block me for knowing how to edit stuff? That doesn't make sense. Dinosoeren (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to block you. Some admin will, if you're found out to have another account. If you indeed never created an account before nothing will happen. Tercer (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for clarifying. Does that mean if I happened to move to a house that has the same IP address as someone who previously created a Wikipedia account, the admins will just assume it was me & block me? Dinosoeren (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the admins need some evidence that it's actually the same person. The most common case is that some brand new account appears and immediately enters an edit war started by another account. The admins then see that both are from the same IP address and give them both a permanent block. Tercer (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you! That is a relief. Dinosoeren (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tercer! I'm addressing you directly in a question related to the notability of academic journals discussion, instead of in that discussion, since I find the following question about definitions a bit peripherical to the general subject, and since it may be based on some misunderstanding of mine which might be resolved without further cluttering that discussion. If you disagree, and want to move this to Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals), then it's OK with me.

In this edit, you (as I understood it) claim that a subject is notable in the WP sense if and only if it should have a stand alone article. (As usual, of course, with the reservation that common sense should be used in all application of WP guidelines and policies.) Was this a correct interpretation?

On the other hand, I understood the notability criteria more as a necessary but not sufficient condition for a stand-alone article. I suspected that this also is a widespread community opinion. (I rarely if ever have seen any references to notability criteria in discussions about splitting or merging items.) I therefore checked the lead in WP:N; and as I read it, it indeed seems closer to my idea. I quote what I think is the most relevant part here here (and I'm sure you prefer to check yourself whether the context yields any other interpretation):

"This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list, though notability is commonly used as an inclusion criterion for lists (for example for listing out a school's alumni)."

Now, as you recall, you wrote

"Notability does mean always enough for a standalone article."

As I read this, this is not in accordance with the WP:N guideline. In our case, the primary "topic" should be the individual journal. If this "topic" should be found notable, it still would depend on other things (and IMHO principally on whether we have an appropriate amount of reliably sourced and relevant information about the journal) whether or not the "topic" deserves a standalone article.

Do you agree on this interpretation, and that this differs from your claim (as quoted above); or did I misunderstand either what you meant or the guidelines? (I did not read through the entire guideline, and of course nor all the accompanying specific subject guidelines/policies. If you think that some particular text clarifies another interpretation of these sentences, then please tell me which ones!) Or did you mean something other than what you happened to write?

Alternatively: Do you agree that there is a formal difference between the guideline and your statement, but think that the guideline in this particular formulation is not quite in accordance with the general interpretation of 'notability' by wp editors? (In the latter case, you might suggest a clarification or change of the WP:N lead.)

Regards, JoergenB (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is used to decided whether a topic can have its own article. If it's notable, it can. That's all I meant. Not that it must have its own article, or even should. Editors are still free to exercise their common sense and decide how to best organize the information.

I wanted to emphasize that it is enough because when a dispute arises the argument "it's notable, we're keeping the standalone article" settles it. And more germane to the matter at hand, editors are creating articles by the thousands (see Category:English-language journals) whose existence is justified solely by the criterion "it's indexed by Scopus".

I felt compelled to comment because you !voted yes, but the rationale for your !vote seemed to me to support no. Tercer (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your warning to Headbomb. Perhaps you can have a look at this very neutral edit (asking for help...), too. Cheers. --Randykitty (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's inappropriate you're free to warn ජපස. Tercer (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not in the mood for things that will get ignored at best and lead to another wall of text at worst. Just thought you'd like to see this edit. --Randykitty (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Tercer (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We seem to have a disagreement over whether L3 is closer to the primary than the secondary object is. I think it is closer, and this is in agreement with the tabulated values for the Earth-Moon Lagrangian points elsewhere in the article. I also checked this directly by using Mathematica to solve the given equation that governs L3 and got a positive answer for r, so that all seems consistent. I hope we can reach agreement on this. Prof John Peacock (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be doing original research here. I reverted your edit because we have a source for the position of L3 [17], and it clearly states that it is further from the primary object than the secondary. The section "Solar System values" is completely unsourced and should be removed. Tercer (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about needing things to be sourced, and this is a principle of Wikipedia that I support. But we also want the articles to be correct. It's possible that the reference you cite is confusing about the signs - I'll check the exact wording and also try to find an alternative reference. As for the Solar System values, I personally think those numbers are interesting to have. Again, the solution is probably to add references rather than simply suppress the material. How about this for the Earth-Moon values (again showing L3 as closer to the Earth than the Moon is)? https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Locations-of-the-five-Earth-Moon-Lagrangian-points-namely-where-the-Earth-and-Moon_fig1_228781180 Prof John Peacock (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A conference proceedings from 2002? That's a rather weird source. Lagrange points are textbook material, and that's the kind of source that I would expect. In any case, the mathematics described in the Wikipedia article are an approximation for the case of a circular orbit where the mass of the secondary is negligible with respect to the mass of the primary. Tercer (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at reference 20. It doesn't say in words that L3 is more distant. But it gives equation (20): L3 = -R(1 + 5 alpha/12), which is the result originally quoted. But this is the coordinate of L3 relative to the barycentre, not from the centre of the main planet. The position of that centre is called r1 in the article, and is r1 = -alpha R. So relative to the centre of the planet, L3 = -R(1-7 alpha/12). I previously forgot to change 5 to 7 when I corrected the sign, but it's done now. Prof John Peacock (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are right, I apologize. I hadn't realized that Ref. 20 was giving the answers in terms of barycentric coordinates. What led me astray was the expressions it gives for L1 and L2, as those are equal to the formulas you get from the centre of the primary. But the difference is linear in alpha, which is negligible with the respect to the third root of alpha appearing in the expression. It's supposed to be correct only on the lowest order anyway. Tercer (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm glad we were able to converge. But regarding "correct to lowest order", I'm puzzled why you replaced m/M by m/(m+M), since the difference between these is of higher order in m/M and therefore either form is equally correct at the stated level. Out of curiosity, I checked whether the new formulae give the right next-order corrections to the lowest order formula. In fact, the expression for L3 is correct to next order, but the one for L2 is not - even the sign of the correction is wrong. So this change doesn't seem an improvement, even though it's correct as stated. Prof John Peacock (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because m/M is arbitrary. It's not used in the derivation, it's not used in the source. It was just put there by hand by whoever wrote the formula in the first place. Tercer (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made edits to Many-worlds interpretation and you reverted them. I explained my edits. You said "that's a distinctly unhelpful lead, and nobody agreed with you". Pre-agreement is not a requirement for editing wikipedia. Now I don't agree with you. Should I just revert you? That seems bad.

To me, a better strategy is to open a Talk topic when you revert a recent edit. That will make me feel that we are in discussion to make the article better rather than in an argument about whose version more "helpful". I will do my best to do the same. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You opened a discussion in the talk page proposing your edit. Me and mfb disagreed with you. And then you did it anyway. Come on. Tercer (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I replied asking for references. Nothing. Disagreements aren't settled when you think they are settled. I posted multiple references on the lack of clarity for the meaning of these words in the context of QM.

A clear discussion the article of what determinism means for MWI would be great, but these assertions are not justified. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am distinctly uninterested in finding references stating the blinding obvious. I did find one for "determinism" once before though [18]. Tercer (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton: Please check Wikipedia:BRD. In general bold edits are encouraged, but if they are reverted or if there is disagreement before the edit would happen (as it was in this case) then you should find an agreement on the talk page first. Also relevant here is Wikipedia:BLUDGEON. You flooded the talk page with tons of sections and made many edits of the article. It looks like you hope to get potentially controversial changes done by overwhelming everyone with material to check. If you continue this, the most likely outcome is a broad revert of all your edits to a state before you started changing everything everywhere. --mfb (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If I understand you correctly, I should not post about issues on the page, just edit those issues.

My concern that caused me to post topics are the existing references. (Ok. And a tendency to use writing as a self-check to ensure what I am doing makes sense to myself). I feel like the edit summaries are inadequate to explain why the existing reference was used incorrectly.

The page is unusual in that it has lots of references but an amazing number are misused. I have not encountered that before so I guess I took the wrong approach.

I will try just editing and see how that goes. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfb Ok so I tried your advice and I'm unsure how to proceed.

I removed an unreferenced and (in my opinion) incorrect sentence: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Many-worlds_interpretation&oldid=1175354301.

My change was reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Many-worlds_interpretation&oldid=1175356859

There is a Talk entry I referenced in my edit, from a previous version of this same incorrect sentence: Talk:Many-worlds_interpretation#Wheeler's_view_of_MWI_in_later_years

If you read through there you will see another editor located the transcript containing Wheeler's comment, which I quoted in the Talk entry. I found a later work of Wheeler where he discusses his views on MWI and I quoted him in the Talk entry. It's clear to me that "disavow" is far too strong a word. Furthermore, Wheeler is such a central figure that we should have more material from him in the article. For that reason I did more research and created the section "Observers and Wheeler's perspective". That section already contains the other editors reference to Wheeler's later point of view.

The contested change is incorrect, unsourced, and redundant. But now it is in the article. What is your advice on how to proceed? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did the exact opposite of what I suggested. Slow down. Edits you made have been reverted multiple times now. You should discuss them on the talk page first and only change the article if there is consensus for a change. In addition, work on one section at a time. There is no deadline and countless readers agreed with the article version before you started changing everything everywhere - can't be that bad. --mfb (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again thank you for your advice. May I ask what makes Michael C Price special such that many edits per day are acceptable? Is your concern specifically my one or two ill-advised edits to the lead paragraph? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not.

See "published in a journal", "the journal publishing it", "The journal's editor in chief...", "In fact, this isn’t the first report of alien life to come out of the journal.", etc. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote myself from the talk page I see a majority against you, actually. The editors that I saw clearly stating that it's not a journal are 6: Tercer, jps, Tryptofish, Slatersteven, Rjjiii, JoelleJay. The editors that I saw clearly stating it is a journal are 5: Headbomb, Randykitty, David Eppstein, XOR'easter, CaptainEek. Tercer (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sources. Reliable ones. You have personal opinions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We also had sources saying that it's not a journal. And I'm not arguing about this again. Tercer (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source you have is an off-hand remark from PZ Myers' blog. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of anywhere that the IOP's Journal of Physics Communications might have been discussed? XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard about it, I'm only familiar with JPA. I'll ask around. Tercer (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It came up in discussion here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need assistance getting an algorithm publicized. (You might know of my Dad, CN Yang.) The algorithm eliminates coherence. It has been peer reviewed, but has only one reference because it is a totally new concept:

It might be possible to create a cache that requires no coherence. This would make possible a coherence-free processor. The result would be unlimited cores in one system. The algorithm is:
1 - Program designates on allocation whether memory is shared.
2 - Non-shared memory does not require coherence.
3 - Shared memory can be updated using serialization, no coherence.
4 - Atomic instructions must be modified to update main memory instead of the cache, no coherence.
5 - Since the change is to the transparent cache, all software still functions correctly.

My understanding is that the issue is notability.
I can create a heading coherence-free cache in cache coherence with my article as reference.
I could place it in talk for that article, requesting a modification.
Or can you recommend a good technical computer forum?

Thank you. FrankYang43338 (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who your father is. In any case, Wikipedia is not the place to publicize your algorithm, see WP: PROMOTION. I'm afraid I can't help you. Tercer (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does say

Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge.

How can I accomplish that?

Thanks FrankYang43338 (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Present your work in conferences, get other scientists to cite it. Tercer (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you FrankYang43338 (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tercer. Sorry if my comments last week at WT:WPM § Transition to MathML rendering as default came across as insulting or personal. It was a super stressful and over-dramatic week for me off-wiki (among other things our family car was totaled when an incompetent driver rear-ended my wife on the highway, some local policemen interrogated my 5-year-old and threatened my family, and we moved everything we own from one house to another). I'm extremely concerned if Mediawiki technical folks intend to transition all math rendering on the site to something that in my opinion currently looks unacceptably bad. But I wasn't intending to take my frustrations out on you. All the best –jacobolus (t) 20:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was a terrible week, sorry to hear that. Fair enough, I won't hold it against you. I do agree that MathML/MathJax look terrible now, but the problems are clearly fixable, as demonstrated by Stack Exchange. The problems with the current image rendering are not fixable, and that's why I welcome the transition. Tercer (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone well past WP:NOTFORUM territory into comments like So the "Newtonian constant" coincides with the "c" of modern science, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. Tercer (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Double-slit experiment".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

TheWikiToby (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]