User talk:EditingPencil

Welcome!

Hi EditingPencil! I noticed your contributions to Electric field and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Constant314 (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for the links. EditingPencil (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some tools

Not sure if you are familiar with the following sites, but they are really useful for referencing:

citer.toolforge.org
libgen.is

Roffaduft (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heya.

Thanks for the links, I'll check them out. ^^

PS sorry if I broke something lol EditingPencil (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your Bound state edit. For (collapsible) proofs you also might wanna check out:

Roffaduft (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They stand out too much imo but I don't mind if the styles are changed. EditingPencil (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Circular motion

Hi. Thanks for your edits on Rotation. Would you please add some references for the differences between rotation and circular motion so I can read more? Thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I typed out what I remember from a cram school more than 5 years ago. At that time I remember cross checking it with a textbook but I can't seem to find it in there now (Concepts of physics by HCV). Maybe its from a different book? Anyway, quick googling shows me results talking about this such as here.

Sorry if this is of not much help. EditingPencil (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I have found references and updated the article. I realize that editing in this manner may not have aligned with Wikipedia's guidelines so apologies for not having done this sooner. EditingPencil (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Hello, I'm Apocheir. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of trigonometric identities, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Even if it's a mathematical truth, you still have to provide a reference. Apocheir (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If citation was the issue, I prefer this were discussed in talk page before choosing to revert content.

Also I do not understand the reasoning behind leaving infinite product formula on the page but only taking issue with infinite sums. I have opened a discussion on the talk page here. Let us please give some time to discuss there before choosing to revert content. Thanks! EditingPencil (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of my edit

Hi, I am a 'wet behind the ears' newbie, and I hope you can explain / clarify for my exactly why you deleted my edit of yesterday (3/15) under the topic 'Wave Function'.

Thanks,

VoS SugarplumVisi*ns (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

Please see the linked pages in the edit summary, namely Wave_function#Ontology and Interpretations of quantum mechanics to get a better overview of the context of the added sentence. As explained in the edit summary, I removed your good faith edit in favor of the existing description of the interpretations in the same page but also because the added content is not matching encyclopedic tone of the rest of the article.

If you still disagree you are always free to start a talk page in the same article to come to a consensus with other editors.

PS I notice that your other edit in quantum here, also uses excessive quotation marks which I don't think fits the page either. Please use the sandbox feature of Wikipedia to make edits to the main page after they are refined into the proper tone. No worries though, since I have also been guilty of it when I started out. I won't revert this in the spirit of welcoming a new comer and also because it seems like a minor issue given the state of that article.

Hope you find this helpful.

Cheers! EditingPencil (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your (very prompt) response. As you can no doubt tell by my question, the only part of the 'edit summary' that I completely understood was the 'good faith' comment.

You say that you removed it 'in favor of the existing description of the interpretations'. I am not a physicist, or a scientist of any kind (my last science course was in undergraduate chemistry), but I've always had a strong interest in physics, and have read extensively about quantum mechanics / theory, all in the 'science for non-scientists' genre. I did not think that there was any disagreement at all on the essence of the wave function, and its collapse, but you're suggesting that there is. Would you tell me, in simple language, what that is?

This brings up another issue that I hope you'll be willing to give me some guidance on: most if not all of the WP articles on quantum mechanics / theory seem clearly written for science professionals, with lots of technical terms and heavy-duty math. My interest in editing for Wiki is in doing brief edits that summarize some of the more remarkable, but non-controversial, aspects of it for non-scientists. As I understand it, the controversies mainly have to do with things like the causes of wave function collapse, decoherence, and the big one, the role (if any) of consciousness. Given what I'd like to accomplish, is there a way to actually do that in WP?

Thank you for your time, I really do appreciate it.

VoS SugarplumVisi*ns (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit concerns the widely used Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and is essentially reproduced in the articles section 'Nature of the wave function'. There are other interpretations of quantum mechanics that do not carry the same features, see ontic wavefunction section of comparison of interpretations. EditingPencil (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]