User talk:Michael C Price/Archive 2

IQ societies

Michael, you, together with user:Promking seem to have become the voice of those who are against the deletion of many of the articles. May I make a suggestion? Userfy them, and work on them until they would pass muster. An article like Giga is not going to stand on its own; it is a prime candidate for brief mention in a parent article. An article like Hoeflein (pardon the spelling) may well be able to, if it is properly filled with accounts or information that show notability. Further, if significant improvement is made to the article during the AfD, that is grounds for asking people to reconsider their opinions. My prime goal here is to make Wikipedia better according to the currently accepted rules and guidelines. You know my opinion of rap vs. IQ from the other discussions. Also, I would have had a different opinion on the run-of-the-mill public school than others, but wikipedia is run by consensus, and that is the current consensus. I'm sure you have heard of Nomic; Wikipedia, to me, is a living example thereof, and this is a particular case. Wikipedia would be better off with articles on these topics that meet its standards, but some of these, to me, just do not. -- Avi 00:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

My apologies for deleting the talk page text. Next time, I'll simply post my snarky comments beneath. Esrever 00:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I normally do.  :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD's etc.

I do not have a vendetta against High-IQ societies per se, although my Mensa membership leaves me with dubious of most of them. My goal is to make Wikipedia a better place overall, in accordance with the policies and guidelines in force at the present time. My instinct, as I write on my user page, is I'd rather no data than garbage/inappropriate data, but I am not going to throw out things on principle. Although I haven't undergone analysis recently ( :-P ) I do not think I am motivated by any sense of jealousy or spite, even though I know the results of the only accepted standaed test I took do not make me eligible for Prometheus etc. (I think my sigma was around 3.68 or 3.69 or something like that, I have to check. We dummies don'r have as good a memory as you geniuses :-P ). Researching these AfD's I have come across a lot of interesting data, such as the discussions of 24, 16, or 15 points of IQ per SD, that mega paper comparing various tests, the various College Board reports on the SAT, recentering, and correlations with g and intelligence, etc.) In my opinion, FWIW, these are all things that should be in the High-IQ article, and the various individual society articles should discuss their particular spins on them. You and those with whom you associate are in an excellent position to enhance Wikipedia in that regard, please do so. While walled gardens are items to be uprooted, truly notable information should be kept and enhanced. Thanks. -- Avi 17:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I only just scrapped into Mensa on the standard tests (I do better on untimed ones, and you might be surprised how well you and a lot of folks around here would do on them).

I am rather taken aback that you are explaining that you don't have a vendetta going -- I assumed you'd seen my apologies to you and Byrgenwulf on that score on various talk pages, although I most definitely think that that is a motivating undercurrent for some contributors.

Where we disagree is that I would rather almost any bad data be kept because it can be tagged with warning notices and be used as a basis for future expansion and correction. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed that edit, thank you, I do appreciate that. On the second topic, you may enjoy this, it has lead to many a bloodbath and userbox deletion crusade: meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies. Bon appétit -- Avi 17:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mega Society

You may. Within the argumentation of the debate, the most significant point raised by those who supported the article was that a new draft was available. The article is not protected, so this may be posted at any time and (assuming it is not substantially similiar to the older version) it will be judged anew on its merits. This is good news for you.

The bad news for you is that it is well-established practice within Wikipedia to ignore completely floods of newer, obviously "single-issue POV", contributors at all our deletion fora. I'm among the most "process-wonkish" of Wikipedians, believe me, and even process-wonks accept that these sorts of voters are completely discountable. Wikipedia is not a pure democracy; though consensus matters, the opinion of newcomers unfamiliar with policy is given very little weight. Your vote, that of Tim Shell, and that wjhonson were not discounted. The others supporting your view were. I promise you that it is almost always true that, within Wikipedia, any argument supported by a flood of new users will lose, no matter how many of the new users make their voices known. In the digital age, where sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting are as easy as posting to any message board, this is as it should be for the sake of encyclopedic integrity. It is a firm practice within Wikipedia, and it is what every policy and guideline mean to imply, however vaguely they may be worded. (I do agree that our policies, written by laypeople mostly, could do with a once-over from an attorney such as myself; however, most laypeople hate lawyers, so efforts to tighten wording are typically met with dissent.)

If your supporters were more familiar with Wikipedia, they would realize that, invariably, the most effective way to establish an article after it has been deleted in a close AfD is to rewrite it: make it "faster, better, stronger." This is, in fact, what you claim to have done with your draft. Good show. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually not just me, but also "my supporters" as you call them, help develop the userfied version -- we were in the process of expanding the mega society article when the AfD guillotine came down. Anyway, that's besides the point, I am heartened that you seem to be indicating that the userfied article can be restored in good faith. In view of this I guess it is rather academic, but why did you discount the votes of, say, User:GregorB or User:Canon? They are not new users, not did I solicit them. I presume by Tim Shell you mean Tim Smith?

On a more general point I am disturbed at the divergence between procedure and practice in the AfD process. And it's not just a question of vague wording -- votes should not be the determining factor in the AfD (although in the DRV, yes); the guidelines are quite clear about this. And they are clear that if a consensus is not reached the default should be keep. There seems no way to address procedural errors within the AfD process, within the DRV process itself. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as admin now, and not as the closer, I can say that there was no flaw in this AfD in my opinion. Administrators are given "discretion," remember; although it is not formally written within policy that the standard for DRV review is what the law calls "abuse of discretion," admin discretion is still broad, and it is understood that two different admins might make different decisions in close cases: this is what the concept of discretion implies. One very common case where admin discretion is employed is discounting sockpuppets. This AfD began with a slew of IP addresses voting "keep" without offering a rationale. It is a fact of administrative life that, absent very compelling circumstances, this assures the article is of questionable merit. Floods of IP and new votes are very, very, very, very, very counterproductive: I cannot stress that enough, obviously. Unless many established Wikipedians appear to agree with these floods, and barring the intervention of an unprecedentally-powerful advocate, the article will be deleted. This is what the guideline is referring to when it says "AfD is not a vote-count": if two experienced Wikipedians say to delete an article, and five hundred IP address say to keep it, it will probably be deleted (of course, the admin checks the article to ensure that the Wikipedians' arguments are reasonable as well.) If the maxim "AfD is not a vote" is invoked 20 times a day at AfD, in 18 of those cases, it is invoked to ignore "a raw majority" of sockpuppets and new users arguing without sufficient background in policy. Needless to say, we get these sockpuppet floods in great numbers. Occasionally, perhaps, an article of merit is deleted because it so happens that it is supported by counterproductive means -- if that happens, the article's supporters need to understand that in the merits of the article, and not in the intricacies of process, lay their best hope. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I do understand the concept of discretion but that is not what I saw operating here: discretion operates within bounds and these bounds in practice appear to bear no relation to documented policy, although I do take on board your point about IP addresses. Even if practice is not going to change (and I suspect it isn't) the policy documents need to be updated to reflect this. Returning to the specific DRV, can I remind you of my question of how you discounted the votes of User:GregorB or User:Canon? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:GregorB offered a very brief comment not supported by policy. User:Canon did take the time to offer analysis at DRV, but he had been among the first voters at the AfD to offer a mere "Keep" without explanation; therefore, I assumed he had been solicited by someone. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by your assumptions. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It was eventually (but far from initially) admitted by User Canon that he is Chris Cole, an officer of the Mega Society. Therefore, his participation in the deletion and deletion review processes arguably constitutes a conflict of interest and an instance of "shilling". DaturaS 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? It is a conflict of interest, perhaps, were he the closing administrator, but I see nothing preventing him from voicing his opinion. -- Avi 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig

Hi, Michael, I think you will be interested in this MfD. ---CH 23:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Hi. The RFC I was responding to was posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy. There wasn't a separate discussion, it just links to the talk page. --Alecmconroy 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Michael,Ijust saw your message today.im on aol and am blocked from editing every other time i log in for some reason about subjects i never posted about SOOO I dont often read my talk page. my Email is nazirenemystic@aol.com. thats more relible.NazireneMystic 01:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael C. Price, see my reply to your post on my user page. --Ovadyah 02:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: FYI Mega Society Judgement

Thanks for taking the time. The new article looks good to me, it is going to be much harder to shoot down... GregorB 18:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Inflation

I understand your concern, but it doesn't need to be taken to talk first, although I should have been clearer and noted that your comment appears to be OR. By whom is it seen as today's version of a steady state theory? In fact the two are fundamentally different. Hell, I can't figure out how steady state theory fits in that cat: it was not a pseudoscience, it was a scientically valid theory theory that was falsified, there's a big difference. In any case I placed a fact tag on that statement meaning a cite is required. •Jim62sch• 10:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The similarity is that both the steady-state universe and eternal inflation adhere to the perfect cosmological principle -- although the latter on a scale beyond that of the observable universe. I don't regard this as OR and I'll see if I can find a citation. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations added: Past-Eternal inflation can be viewed as a mainstream steady state theory.[1], since it adheres to the perfect cosmological principle on the largest scale. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine

Recruiting meatpuppets to overwhelm legitimate edits of articles is not appropriate Wikipedia behavior. Please stop encouraging vandalism of the pseudoscience article. -- 70.232.110.230 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop pushing your POV. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to include both POVs: that's what NPOV is about. The current articles fail to acknowledge the mainstream viewpoint. -- 70.232.110.230 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cri du canard (talk • contribs) 23:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC) (also formerly 70.232.110.230)

Hi Michael. I think you doing a good job on repelling the "pseudo--" stuff disparagement. Sorry if we're all a little tense right now, I know I am pretty insulted about the "PS" nonsense, too. Although I wrote immediately after you to maintain chronological sequence, my quote & request was for 70.232.110.230's demonstration of hard facts, I should have additionally addressed him directly by his id number. Sorry for the confusion, I have now added 70.232's correct number so everyone is clear who I am requesting add'l sourcing from. You might want to delete your reply, since my inadequate id is the source of contention, thread control is going wild already. --69.178.41.55 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reminder -- straightened things out. It might be a good idea if you created login account/user name....... :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, it's like trying to reason with a primal force of nature. This person seems intent on wrecking the orthomed related pages and billboarding any disparaging link that can be twisted to his pov. He's invoking Ackoz(= Azmoc), an indfinitely blocked identity or editor. What next?--TheNautilus 05:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Reason is a waste of time with this sort. We'll have get him blocked over a 3RR violation, which requires coordination amongst the OM friendly. What do you think? --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh...

Moved to MWI talk page -- your edits were probably clashing with mine, or there's some problem with an old talk page version being reverted back. Should be okay now. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection for Physics article

I'm willing to semiprotect it, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus for this action on the talk page. I think the policy is wrong:general articles such as that one should be easily semiprotected without encountering wikirocracy.--CSTAR 03:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite follow your answer, but you're right there is no consensus, so I withdraw my request (for the moment). --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are all sorts of procedural obstacles for doing anything which restrict freedom of editing. However, for general articles (with higher visibility) semiprotection should be no big deal.--CSTAR 13:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Teaching physics, the contemporary way

http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/~cew2/P209/part11.pdf and here:

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch11.pdf Have a look at chapter 11.8.

Already read them. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on your edits it seems that you haven't understood. Try reading again or taking the respective course Ati3414 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right, if someone disagrees with you it's because they're stupid or ignorant, not you. Thanks for the info, O wise one. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that Ati3414 20:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing my POV tag

I object to the POV of the lead paragraph. -- Cri du canard 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And I am happy with it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that you are happy with it is necessary, but not sufficient, to remove the POV tag. -- Cri du canard 01:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Same logic applies to its insertion. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you say that shows you greatly misunderstand Wikipedia POV tags. The tag is a flag of a lack of consensus over whether the article complies with NPOV. To claim that there needs to be a consensus over the addition of the tag is false. The fact that three separate editors have complained about the pro-minority-POV-bias of the article shows that there is not consensus, and that is sufficient to add the tag. Consensus is needed before the tag can be removed. -- Cri du canard 12:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

FYI, you've been listed as an involved party at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-09 Orthomolecular medicine and related pages. My advice: ignore the case until it affects you personally, or you are asked for direct involvement. linas 14:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly what I shall do. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Photon mass

Sorry, you cannot say that the photon mass is E/c^2. This simply gives a lot of ammunition to dozens of crackpots . Especially in light of the many experiments that constrain the photon ONLY "mass" to about 6*10^-17 eV which is about 17 orders of magnitude smaller than the 3eV you would get by applying m=E/c^2. Now, if you want wiki to be the place that encourages the crackpots, this is another story, just say so. Ati3414 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say "the photon mass is E/c^2" nor "that there is no such thing as relativistic mass ". If you have trouble reading English, just say so. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the sentence that I keep deleting and you keep putting back in Ati3414 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The clause is "The relativistic mass of such a particle may be taken to be its energy divided by c². " That implies neither of your above claims about what I said. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"Such particle" in the context is the photon. Therefore it means m_photon=e/c^2 where e is the energy of the photon Ati3414 18:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Which implies neither of your above claims about what I said. I'm glad you raised the 3RR issue -- you've motivated me to investigate the reporting procedure. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You obviusly can't read English, nor do you understand physics. As to 3RR , I can report you just the same, BFD.Ati3414 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, that's your priviledge. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest a solution? The mass m as defined in the Energy-momentum relation E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4 is zero for the photon. This is normally called the rest mass but we cannot use that term for the photon because it always moves at c. Might I suggest "intrinsic mass," defining it explicitly via the E-p relation if necessary? - AG, Stockport, UK.

I've added "intrinsic mass" as a synonym for "rest mass"--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Kinetic energy of single particles

Does not exist as an objective thing. Proof: Translate to a frame where the molecule is at rest, and kinetic energy is gone, poof. Kinetic energy is a property of systems, not things. It is not stored in THINGS, but in the fabric of spacetime itself, as Wheeler and Taylor note. You have to go to a system of 2 or more molecules to get kinetic energy which can't be made to go away by choice of frame. THAT energy is weighable. And that frame where it can be weighed as invariant mass, along with the rest energies of the particles themselves, is the COM frame. SBHarris 20:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Wheeler. I often have a problem with this "if it ain't a tensor or is geometry it don't exist" position. Can't say I agree -- seems a misuse of langauge. Anyway, it can still be weighed, no matter how you define it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Point is there's only two ways to weigh it: 1) get into its rest frame (in which case the kinetic energy and the mass associated with it goes away), or 2) Trap it, in which case you have introduced a second object (the box) and now have a system of two objects and and must weigh in the COM frame of same. So kinetic energy (KE) is only weighable as a system property, which is why it only has invariant mass as a system property.

No geometry or tensors, here! Think of two equal mass M particles, headed in opposite directions, at a mutual separation velocity we'll call V. All the KE is in particle #1, as seen from viewpoint of #2. But KE is all in #2 when seen from #1. And divided equally between them when seen from the COM frame, in which they are each headed away with equal velocity V/2.

But how much IS the KE? It's not the same in these scenarios. From the rest frame view of either particle, system KE is (1/2)MV^2. From the COM frame where both particles move at V/2, the KE of each particle is (1/2)M *(V/2)^2 = (1/8) MV^2 for a combined KE of (1/4) MV^2. We just lost half of our KE by chosing that frame. Now, how much mass and WEIGHT did we lose? If you're convinced we can weigh KE, which KE value do we weigh? This will either be immediately apparent to you, or else you'll learn something by figuring it out. You see, you can't get away from the system problem if you want to talk about mass. Nothing but algebra is needed, but even so you do have to get used to the spooky relativistic proposition that energy is not localizable. SBHarris 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't buy it. The algebra is equivalent to the tensor or frame argument. I can transform away velocity in a Galilean frame -- that doesn't mean things don't move. For the same reason "unlocalisable" energy is not spooky -- just frame dependent, which is why we use the Stress-energy-momentum pseudotensors when we have to. I know your position is a popular one, but it boils down to how we want to use the langauge; it doesn't have physical content (our positions are not empirical distinguishable). --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blatent lies

The orthomolecular medicine article currently contains a statement that is utterly, totally false. I am not deleting it because I'm already sick of the lunacy of the dispute.

"Scientific research has found no benefit from orthomolecular therapy for any disease." [2][3]

Any disease? Really? Scurvy, anyone? We are now denying that vitamin C cures scurvy? Feel free to start whatever proceeddings are needed to ban Cri du Canard as a vandal/crank. I've had enough of this non-sense. linas 14:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is from a reliable source, so you can't delete it without consequences. Scurvy, vit. C? What's that got to do with OM? Keep in mind guys, your edit histories are under observation, and there is accruing massive evidence of conspiracy against other editors, bad faith editng on your parts, as well as failure to assume good faith. Your words above are quite incriminating. -- Fyslee 22:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is not a reliable source -- it hasn't been through peer-review. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There are other types of reliable sources recognized by Wikipedia. It also happens to be a summary of the published scientific record, which has been peer-reviewed. Since you claim it's not a reliable source, please provide the precise quotes from the policy page to back up your claim. -- Fyslee 23:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am deeply troubled by your attitude on this page Michael, particularily the lack application of WP:NPOV. Further to your comment on Cri's talk page: "Restoring text deleted in bad faith is not in violation of 3RR.", that in fact can contribute to 3rr. The only exeptions are in the case of biographies of living people, banned users, or blatent vandalism, of the "ERIC IS A FAG" kind. Allegations of concerted action have been made against you and a fellow editor which are very worrying after reviewing some of the evidence and may neccesitate a review of some of those editing the page. I suggest that you review some of Wikipedia cores polies very carefully regarding some of your interpratations of the rules. Jefffire 14:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:VAND#Types_of_vandalism

Sneaky vandalism

Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos.

Canard is adept at adding misinformation. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR and AGF on orthomolecular medicine

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.

• 10:55 am
• 10:37 am
• 9:52 am

-- Cri du canard 13:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.

• 11:27 am

-- Cri du canard 13:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for correcting my edit of De Sitter universe. Even I am confused by my own edit. The edit summary I left was "avoid redirect" but there was no redirect involved there. I must have had multiple windows open at the time and chose the wrong one to 'fix' -- thank you for correcting my error. SWAdair 04:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Afshar's Experiment and Many Worlds

Hi Michael, I've been wondering whether Afshar's experiment actually gives evidence for the many-worlds interpretation (contrary to what Afshar believes). When the observer measures a photon at detector 1 he can surely deduce that the photon must have gone through pinhole 1. But in that case, if there is no scattering or absorption from the wires, then surely a "mirror" photon must have travelled through pinhole 2 at the same time in order that the photon wavefunction is zero at the wires. One can only assume that this mirror photon triggered detector 2 and was registered in a "parallel" consciousness of the observer. I guess I'm asserting that each "world" in this interpretation of the experiment is a phenomenological world in the consciousness of the observer. Maybe I'm arguing for many-minds rather than many-worlds - I don't know.

User:John Eastmond 19:30, 22 August 2006

You've convinced me :-) , although I imagine Afshar will blow a fuse to hear that. Of course I regard every experiment that reconfirms Schrodinger's wave-equation as reconfirming MWI -- but your interpretation of the result is certainly very clear, coherent and concise. And I'd better stop here or I won't be. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though I say so myself, I think this type of analysis of Afshar's experiment is an advance over Deutsch's many-worlds explanation of the straight-forward two-slit experiment (as described in his book Fabric of Reality). Whereas most people stop at the wavefunction as a description of the photon state, Deutsch tries to go further and describes the wavefunction as the superposition of real photons travelling along different paths. In the simple two-slit experiment I don't think there is a compelling reason for anyone to follow him in his many-worlds description (unless they happen to like that sort of philosophical viewpoint). More specifically the individual "real" photons posited by Deutsch are never observed so why should they be assumed to have a reality beyond that of the wavefunction itself? I think Afshar's experiment is different. The fact that detector 1 triggers gives the observer real information that allows him to infer the existence of a real photon having been localised at pinhole 1. In other words the observer's "world" of a detector 1 trigger includes the valid deduction of the previous existence of a "real" photon at pinhole 1. In order to reconcile this fact with the fact of no scattering from the wires he is forced to accept that another real photon went through pinhole 2 at the same time and was presumably detected by detector 2 and consciously registered as "real" by another version of the observer's consciousness. It seems to me that whereas the classic two-slit interference experiment allows a many-paths explanation, Afshar's experiment demands a many-worlds one. Do you think this is right? Would it be worth someone writing a paper putting this point of view? -- User:John Eastmond 13:00, 23 August 2006

Yes to both questions, I think. It would be sort of cool to write an article on the subject, even if it got no further than the e-archives. I tried to read Deutsch's Fabric of Reality, but it sends me to sleep. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The RfC comment

No, I did mean it as a subsection of what you said - I was agreeing with you. Thanks for asking though. Batmanand | Talk 13:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Your comments at [2] would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, bunix 03:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sarfatti

Oops, yes; of course. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro to QM article

Dear Michael,

Thanks for your help with the introductory article on quantum physics. I've done what I can to make that article both accurate and comprehensible, but some of the things written by other people still seem to me to be questionable. Some contributors have had their own ax to grind, and in some cases I have communicated fruitlessly just to try to understand what these contributors are actually trying to say. I carried my work down to the point of trying to get a clear picture of what Heisenberg was doing with his original matrices and then ground to a halt and haven't had time to try to work through the math and the scattered references that are available. Beyond that I have made only obvious edits where it is clear what the writer was trying to say. I would like it very much if you would read through for both clarity (why can't most people write like Heisenberg and Einstein?) and accuracy. P0M 20:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about trying to deduce what Heisenberg was trying to say -- even Steve Weinberg says he can't follow Heisenberg's train of deductive thought in his original article. Just concentrate on trying to explain QM as currently understood. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have the feeling that much of what is said about QM is fuzzier than it needs to be or should be. For instance, saying that a*b != b*a without mentioning that "a" and "b" represent matrices that are being multiplied strikes me as being not very helpful. To make something clear and simple I have to really understand it, not just read secondary sources and paraphrase them. I don't feel that I actually understand any of it very well. P0M 04:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Trying to reach an infobox consensus here: [3]. Please can you weigh-in with your opinion? SureFire 00:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Quantum immortality

Hello, I have been working on neuroscience recently, but I saw your big edits in MWI. So if you want, you can add the argument against quantum suicide argued by me in a letter to Max Tegmark, not replied of course (I think all scientist appeared in New Scientist, and similar popular journals are quite resistant to critique). But since my argument is quite extraordinary and safe, I think you can add it as a rebuttal (or why NOT possible proof of MWI?). Basicly my rebuttal of Max is like that:

• Q1: what is special in the quantum suicide?
• A1: the fact that consciousness is intrinsically binary - you cannot be in superposition of "conscious + inconscious"! (note: this does not imply you cannot be in intermediate state of dreaming, hallucinating, etc. The argument in weakest form is that the edge alternatives conscious vs. unconscious are not subject to q-superposition)
• Q2: I want to perform a safe quantum suicide, what should I do?
• A2: Well, since I am anesthesiologist (actually used to be), I have proposed quantum self-anesthesia with particle decay. The logic of Max Tegmark should be identical, and you will always remain in the branched Universe in which the self-anesthesia have failed. I think however that you can quantum self-anesthetize yourself, so the quantum suicide logic fails completely. You should be able to branch as dead brain + body without conscious experience in 50% of the trials. Q.E.D.

I hope you like my simple rebuttal, so you can add this "safe quantum suicide" version proposed by me. More on QM next time :-) Danko Georgiev MD 10:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Danko, I'm having problems following your English, so I can't quite tell what you mean. Having looked at Quantum Suicide and Quantum Immortality I do think the articles should be merged. Do you agree? --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes better merge both entries.

What about my English, I think it is not the language problem, the problem is possibly a conceptual one. Basicly I want to prove that Tegmark is completely mistaken, but I leave the "door open" [with irony] suggesting that those who don't believe my words can try to arrange the "safe" setup with quantum self-anesthesia, and try to observe the "quantum self-anesthesia failure" (as analogue of quantum immortality).

• As far as I understand the logic of the quantum suicide advocate is as follows: (i) q-superposition of conscious + unconscious is IMPOSSIBLE, (ii) only conscious brain can observe, then conclusion (iii) [WRONG!] from the perspective of the branching conscious observer he must always remain in the branch of the Universe in which he is still consciously observing.
• Now my own argumentation is that step (iii) is wrong non-sequitur conclusion, and indeed you should be able to branch in Universes that contain nonconscious brain state of yours. In this case however "quantum immortals" (ironic term for the believers of the q-immortality idea) should NOT so confidently proceed towards testing of MWI, because the quantum suicide game is as dangerous as the real classical playing of Russian roulette game, shooting consequtively e.g. 4 times in your head.
• Well, I hope all this is clarified now. I use some inronic moments in the text, so in Bulgarian the passage will be also not-understandable if one does not get the sense of irony. More seriously, I think that everyone that has gone anesthesia, or more simply everyday "unconsciousness" during natural sleep, has assured himself that "he can be in unconscious state", and "branched in Universe where is unconscious", so the whole quantum immortality idea that is based on the WRONG conclusion that "you cannot be branched in Universe where you are in unconscous state", is ridiculous. Or if the "q-immortality advocates" want to clarify further their position claiming that I have misunderstood their position on the branching of the Universe, they will have big problem to explain why there is no problem for you to shoot in your head with the quantum gun. Danko Georgiev MD 03:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Just to analyze the structure of the main thesis of the Q-immortals: [1] "from the perspective of the branching conscious observer he must always remain in the branch of the Universe in which he is still consciously observing". It is word by word correct summary of the whole idea, but is wrong conclusion. There is intuitive feeling that [2] "from the perspective of the branching conscious observer" is equivalent to [3] "the human is branched into Universe where he is conscious". Yes, there is contradiction in saying [4] "the conscious observer is in unconscious state", however at no place of the reasoning I am forbidded to use the fact that [5] "conscious observer can evolve into unconscious state". So this statement [5] implies "change/transition in the state of consciousness" and I am nowhere obliged to arrive at paradox [4] in my thesis that you can branch in Universe where you are dead. I say "the human is branched into Universe where he is unconscious", utilizing the fact [5] that the "conscious observer" can change itself into "dead unconscious human". Remark: The whole fallacy is immediately resolved if one is hinted that "impossibility to have superposition of conscious + unconscious" DOES NOT imply "conscious state cannot evolve into unconscious state". The temporal evolution of the human performing suicide at no point suggests that it was in superposition of conscious + unconscious, it has however both conscious states and non-conscious states at different time points of his life. This should be clarify the whole issue, and exactly point out at what step of the logical reasoning the "quantum immortals" make the overlook. Danko Georgiev MD 03:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

p.s. I have read the whole article quantum immortality, and it is COMPLETELY WRONG. It is written in good faith by someone, but all the reasoning is flawed, as decribed in my analysis above. Danko Georgiev MD 03:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Mike, I hope you will read this story [4] - AMAZING ONE! I am amazed by the fact how a writer makes the MWI look like as the most stupid theory invented ever. And I will repeat what Morpheus says in the movie The Matrix "Everything begins with a choice", and so in oder to have a real meaning for the word "choice" then only one Universe should be there ... Danko Georgiev MD 08:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It is, of course, very easy to make the MWI sound ridiculous, just as once, no doubt, the idea that the Earth went round the sun must have sounded. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Fields

Thank you for casting your vote on the Einstein infobox. Please now go to [5] to give your opinion on how you want the individual fields modified. SuperGirl 08:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

I didn't see a consensus on demoting the QM page to a topic under another heading either. So let's delete the page before it confuses too many people, and talk seriously about organization later. David R. Ingham 06:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

You need to check out your religion infobox entry on the Isaac Newton page. Someone has fiddled with it. I preferred what you had before. Pls can you trouble shoot. Also on a similar topic, you are needed here [6]. SuperGirl 23:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Too tired today though... --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Mega Society 2

I've taken the liberty of re-creating the article Mega Society from you sub page. I think enough time has passed, but I could be worng. -- Avi 13:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You did warn us

Hi, I realy didnt know the extent Wikilawyering can effect the POV of an artical. WOW. Looks like I stepped on lots of toes. I didnt expect to have any lasting changes but so much trickery has gone on at this time just mentioning it is being discribed as making personal attacks so I do not think it will be long before my acount is blocked. Thanks for the warning.NazireneMystic 23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ebionite article is a pale shadow of its former self. I may return to it one day, but I'm learning to avoid contentious subjects. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Michael, you are welcome to work on the article anytime as far as I'm concerned. It will not be contentious for much longer. :) Ovadyah 03:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's not just the contentiousness of it, but also the way a lot of good material has been lost (e.g. about John the Baptist, Jesus as archangel, direct quotes from the GoE...) and I got pissed off at Loremaster's unyielding attitude to this. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean, LOL I have preditory editors following me around. Ahh my fan club. They are also tring to do something about my talk page or anything else that points to tactics regarding that artical. Sorry to bring him here, didnt think it would happen. Actualy I was wondering what you thought about the Holographic Universe theory. My study of the spiritual law kind of lead me to it?NazireneMystic 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My take on the Holographic Universe theory is that it is over-hyped. I suspect that it may be no more than a consequence of the entropy of black holes and the Bekenstein bound -- but I could be wrong. Hang on, that's the holographic principle. Do you refer to David Bohm's ideas on quantum theory? If so I'm a many-worldsist, which means I don't believe in the Holographic Universe. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael,

I will work on my spelling however my post while never refuted by the POV pushers have long been ignored before I stopped signing my post. From what I have seen so far I can not take Wikipedia serious enough to sign into my account to do so.

BTW what point's have I brought up in the Ebionite talk page do you have problems with? and more important, what is the reason you do not agree with them? Do you think Yah should have the work by the leader of his religous group as a reference in the Ebionite artical or was it some other point.Nazirenemystic

I sympathise with your language difficulties (English is not an easy langauge to learn), however I would still encourage you to login in and sign your posts. (Signing in is not too much trouble -- I only have to log about once a month or so. Perhaps you need to change your options or something?)

The disagreement I referred to was about Alec's classification of the ancient sources as primary sources rather than secondary sources. I can see where he's coming from here and sort of 3/4 agree with him (albeit reluctantly). I don't think he was saying this is in an attempt to censor the article. Assuming bad faith from other people (as Loremaster also does) will not help the situation.

I think you have been somewhat harshly treated (I opposed the deletion of the modern ebionite article, if you recall). --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice to Meet You

I wasn't trying to be too disrespectful, just funny, but I guess at your expense, when I wrote "Ha, Ha..." in Schrodinder's Cat Discussion. I apologize if you thought I was being an ass. I just thought it was hyper-uncanny that we were unknowingly writing simultaneously -probably the word "sealed" itself [!], in a discussion involving nothing less than the potential correspondence (the "extra sensory perception" of Schrodinger's Cat) between the circumstance of the Cat's knowlege and it's ability to change it's fate, and that I so happened to post first, basically answering your question before I knew you asked it.

I was freaked and later made the inside joke I thought only the most observant would appreciate. I couldv'e exercised more humility. Only later did I learn more about you and thought that you might deserve a more respect. --Charlesrkiss 16:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't think you were an ass -- I just wasn't quite sure what you were trying to say. Is the article clearer now? --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming vandals

I was amused at your recent welcome for vandals [7] :) I suppose the rules (policy? guidelines? wikilaws?) say that's what you've gotta do. I'm afraid I'm beyond the stage where I can display that level of sarcasm. I'm slowly becoming convinced that the whole exercise is hopeless and we do far more harm than good by pretending there is anything useful to be found here.--CSTAR 05:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, glad it made you laugh. Blatant vandalism doesn't bother me -- it's the POV cranks that wind me up.--Michael C. Price ^talk 12:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that bothers me more.--CSTAR 14:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Alan Guth the atheist

Here is a site map of the website; http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/index.htm .

It is even critical of Christianity.

Okay, it seems non-creationist.  :-) But the claim still seems ill-sourced, being based on Guth's book "The Inflationary Universe". I don't recall any atheist affirmation in it, although he does say something, somewhere (where?, I can't remember) about preferring beliefs to be empirically based. Sounds like an atheist to me, but I'm sure many religious people would disagree! --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mega society 2

Hi Michael, I am sorry but I have no copy of the article. Try to ask an admin. Happy editing, --Ioannes Pragensis 20:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User:MichaelCPrice/mega2, good luck. -- Avi 20:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Avi, and thanks Ioannes for being sensible! --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Should I just delete the mega2 page for you? It qualifies as a speedy if the author wishes it deleted, but it is in your user space. -- Avi 22:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, I'll keep as an extra sandbox. And thanks again for your help. Crazy world, eh? --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot restore it directly per wiki policy. I suggest first WP:DRV and perhaps mention on WP:AN/I. -- Avi 17:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If the problem continues I might take it to WP:AN/I, although it has just become moot since someone else has just re-created it. Well, sort of... --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw that discussion on the talkpage on Cosmic inflation

I will not post those edits again, but what did you think of them? Did it describe "hybrid inflation" and "Catholic inflation" well?

The Catholic link leaves me completely cold; as far as I could see the sources do not link the c.church with inflation. As for hybrid inflation, I've never studied it -- my knowledge is limited to what I've read in the article about it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Julian Lincoln Simon

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.

You have done a great deal to improve the article about Julian Lincoln Simon, but instigating a massive NPOV edit war while insisting there isn't even a POV dispute at all doesn't reflect on you well and has made the article noticably worse. Please calm down and refrain from editing the article for a while. Robotsintrouble 01:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Schrödinger's cat

Please don't just revert changes saying, "I don't agree". You do not have the right of final veto on editing decisions. If you wish to discuss the removal of the pictures, please do so on the talk page. Reverting good-faith edits by other editors with "I don't agree with this edit" is not acceptable editing behaviour on Wikipedia. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 02:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I said more that just "I don't agree" in the edit comment. Please don't be selective in your reporting. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You said it hours after you reverted the changes and also after I posted by comments in here. I can't help being not reporting things if they haven't yet happened when I report them. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 09:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We talking about different things. I'm talking about my edit summary comment, made at the same time as the edit (obviously) where I said: "I don't agree that the extra pictures don't add anything". --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Banners on Many worlds interpretation

Is there any reason for keeping those banners? I'm sure every WP article has room for improvement, but this one seems fine with me. Some of it may be obscure (mea culpa) but the intro at least is readable.--CSTAR 18:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi CSTAR, I'm not going to object to removing the banners. I agree the intro is readable. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites article dispute

Michael, I've repeatedly provided explanations for my revert edits in light of your acts of vandalism. I have already explained to why the Lead does not need to mention your inserts which are already mentioned elsewhere in the article. It is ridiculous of you to describe the deletion of these inserts as inserting original research. I've discussed all these issues on the Talk:Ebionites page and my views and actions are supported by User:Ovadyah position which is identical to my own. There is no consensus possible since you are using wikilawyering to impose your own POV into the article which I am trying to remove to preserve a neutral point of view. Period. --Loremaster 01:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I asked Meta to revert the article to the version right before the last totally disputed tag and drop the protection level to semi-protected. As I pointed out to Meta, despite all the incivility on the talk page, we have never been in an edit war, so there may yet be hope of progress on the article. Ovadyah 02:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's true, we two have never been in an edit war and, despite our differences (whatever they are, about which I am still unclear), I'm sure we could work together to reach a consensus. Loremaster is the problem: he doesn't understand policy, always thinks he's right and doesn't seek consensus. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mirror reflections

Dear Mike, concerning the $\pi$ phase shift resulting from mirror reflection, please see my post here. I think the confusion arised because of not making clear the distinction between q-amplitude and observable (needs squaring). So when one speaks about photon, it is not clear what the photon is - the q-amplitude, or the detected observable/particle/light intensity. I hope the confusion will be clarified soon. I have just noted that squaring $e^{\pi /2}$ gives $e^{\pi }$, best Danko Georgiev MD 12:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Danko, I'm busy right now, but certainly it is easy to mix up the probability amplitude with the probability density / intensity. I'll look into it more in a few days (hopefully). --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike, since you raised the issue of the validity of the equations used by me in describing the Unruh's setup, I hope you will help in correctly figuring out where is the confusion. In my view if the observable light is shifted by half wavelength, then the photon quantum amplitude must be shifted by $\pi /2$, so that when squared it gives half wavelength shift. So the imaginary term that I have used $\imath$ when squared gives -1. Danko Georgiev MD 09:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

I did seek talk page resolution. Anyway I am content with the ban since it has been applied equally. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[8] made on January 14 2007 to Ebionites

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 11:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Discount function

Michael-- I took out your addition to the article on discount functions, because it seemed to be copied verbatim from the abstract of the article on pubmed you linked to. Instead, I inserted links to the wp articles on exponential and hyperbolic discounting. I think there's lots of room to include assessments of discounting assumptions, and would be delighted if you'd return to do it. Jeremy Tobacman 16:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites

Please refrain from editting until March, as agreed. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Micheal, I was refraining from editing the Ebionites article until I noticed someone vandalized it so I felt justified in correcting that. Then I noticed a sentence in the introduction that deserved a minor edit for the sake of clarity. Beyond that I wasn't planning on doing anything else. That being said, I find it amusing that you are taking the time to chide me for editing the article when we are getting close to the end of March and you have done NOTHING to expand and/or improve the article. So shut up and get to work. ;) --Loremaster 17:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael, You may not like my spelling but at least I am not among thoes involved in the Ebionite "article" that seem to attack any evidence that does not support a narrow point of view held by two editors. [User claims to be NazireneMystic] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.128.182 (talk • contribs) 4:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, despite our differences in viewpoint. I've more or less given up on the Ebionites article for the moment -- I'm too busy with other things to waste much time arguing with bigots who refuse to follow wikipolicy (by which I do not mean you). At some point I will return. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blind as a Bat

Thanks for restoring that link on James Tabor. I just didn't see it. I guess I'm blind as a bat that late at night. Reverend Mommy 13:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)candlemb

Noether's theorem

My reversion at Noether's theorem was based on objecting to all the changes, not just the one which I mentioned. Please do not assume that, just because I mention one reason, there are no others. JRSpriggs 06:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I can hardly be blamed for thinking that, can I, since you did not discuss or mention the other reasons? What was your objection to the mention of the description of the phase of a wave function and its charge as conjugate variables, which you also reverted? --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not certain that those variables are conjugate (although they certainly are related), and there were already enough examples of conjugate pairs. JRSpriggs 08:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It was recently added to the article by Enormousdude (talk · contribs) and then restored after I removed it by SteakNShake (talk · contribs). I lack confidence in either of these persons as physicists or editors. JRSpriggs 09:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about the variables as not being conjugate variables; I'll check later today and revert back if needed.--Michael C. Price ^talk 10:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The noether current associated with phase is a charge carrying EM current, not charge itself. The article needs amending to reduce the over-emphasis on conjugate variables. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

MWI

(→Required assumptions and controversy - Not necessarily unprovable (e.g. MWI -- depends on your POV); tightened up some wording and linked directled to interpretations of QM)

How would you test for MWI in the "real" world? the other points hinge on this but do not necessarily follow even if MWI is shown, just my curiosity.Hardyplants 10:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair question. I was thinking of quantum computing. Here's what the MWI article says:

In a more practical vein, in one of the earliest papers on quantum computing, he (David Deutsch -ed) suggested that parallelism that results from the validity of MWI could lead to "a method by which certain probabilistic tasks can be performed faster by a universal quantum computer than by any classical restriction of it". Deutsch has also proposed that when reversible computers become conscious that MWI will be testable (at least against "naive" Copenhagenism) via the reversible observation of spin.

So not testable yet, but perhaps one day?? --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt, I like the clean up did with the page its an improvement. Also, but least importantly, I will stick with my POV on this subject for now- thank you for responding and have a good day. Hardyplants 10:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

@Talk:High_IQ_society#External_link_controversyTstrobaugh 17:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hostel Part:II

Hi, I reverted two of your edits as I feel they added detail which was not necessary namely:

• The original plot outline details that Lorna's blood is bathed in, the fact that it 'showers' into the tub is irrelevent.
• The original plot outline details that the genitals are fed to the dogs, again the fact that they are 'tossed' is irrelevent.

If we were trying to write a literary masterpiece then such descriptions would be quite apt. The fact that we are not, I feel, results in the plot outline just being overly long.

The friend/brother part was removed by mistake. Apologies. RaseaC 15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see how you judge "tossed" as irrelevant. Also please note the original description of Lorna's death was incorrect, since it implied her back was only slashed once. I also felt the original description implied that Ms Bathory was only doused in blood at the end -- which is not correct.--Michael C. Price ^talk 09:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Valid points. However,

• The original revision of Lorna's death states 'slashes' (as in plaural) which suggests that this happened a number of times. Also, I would argue that 'bathe' by itself is more suitable because it suggests Ms Bathory spent time covering herself in the blood, rather than simply dousing herself as you rightly pointed out as incorrect.
• As a compromise I would suggest the castration part should read '...castrates Stuart, tosses his genitalia to the dogs and leaves him to bleed to death.'

While both are minor matters, plot outlines read better if excessive descriptions are cut out.RaseaC 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Final point accepted of course, but I felt the original description was slightly misleading:

• I didn't read "slashes at" as implying plural - quite the reverse actually, but perhaps that was just how I read it. It seems to me that the point in repeatedly slashing Lorna's back was -- apart from the sadism involved -- to splash herself with blood before the bath proper. Otherwise Ms bathory would have simply slit her throat first and be done with the preliminaries.
• Re the dogs, I could go with the compromise -- it's the explicit "to eat" bit you object to, is it? :-) Perhaps you could leave in the "orders" part instead -- the point is that once Beth had shown herself capable of murder the organization was prepared to accept her commands, to some extent.--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Create an informational template for how to use primary sources

Template:Primary Sources

Create a template warning about the improper use of primary sources and how to use them correctly. Ovadyah 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I created a template for primary sources with the content from the Ebionites talk page. We can play with the formating and make this into a nice template. Ovadyah 22:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool! --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Guess What. There is already a Template:Primarysources We should use that or change the name of this template to something else and TfD the template I created. Ovadyah 14:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Good find. The generic template is fine, but I feel that only something personalised, with examples, to the article and its problems is going to have any impact. The problem is that most editors (and not just newbies) have no idea about primary vs secondary sources -- and why should they? It's not something you need to be aware of most of the time at Wiki, until you get into a really tricky subject where everything is disputed and subject to conflicting deeply held religious POVs. I suggest we leave the personalised template on the talk page and perhaps add the generic one to the article itself? --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I TfD'ed the template because the similarity of the names is too confusing. We can still keep the content and give the template a different name. Ovadyah 14:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't add the generic template to the article because it suggests there is currently a problem with primary sources. I don't think that's the case. I intended the template to be used on the talk page as a caution to editors to avoid improper use of primary sources. Ovadyah 14:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. --Michael C. Price ^talk 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits to Most ancient common ancestor

Hearing no objections for over 6 hours, I reverted your edits to Most ancient common ancestor. I'm sure you made them in good faith, and the version I reverted to does have serious OR problems, but you replaced one article with another that was weak and confusing at best. I'm open to gutting again, but only after a discussion of what needs to be done and a day or two to source the existing article. Of course, this may all be mooted by the AfD in progress. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

To say the version you've reverted does have "serious OR problems" is putting it rather mildly. I guess I don't care anymore. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Good changes in the Pseudotensor and Stress-energy-momentum pseudotensor

I saw that you improved the 2 articles. I haven't done anything recently about them because I have other priorities at the moment, mostly "Curvilinear coordinates" but I plan to return to them when I finish with the current task and make them at least B-class. Your changes are in line with our discussion, well thought-out and well written. However, my feeling is that those articles are not too good at the moment, lacking material and not well planned. The material that is in "SEM pseudotensor" is adequate (though incomplete) for an article on "LL pseudotensor" but is very inadequate, even misleading, under the heading SEM pseudotensor. It completely disregards the fact that there are other SEM pseudotensors, and also the most important property of those quantities - the localisation (or the lack of it) of the pure gravitational energy. Lantonov 06:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've hinted at the localization by pointing out that LL vanishes in an inertial frame -- I'll try to expand that a bit. Unfortunately I know very little about other GR pseudotensors; if I did I would separate out the umbrella "SEM pseudotensor" from the specific examples, which I think is what you are suggesting. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, separating the different pseudotensors from the umbrella SEM pseudo is what I and other people suggested in the discussion of the article. Concerning myself, I know something about the various pseudotensors and have ample though not systematic material about them. Still, I do not feel that right now I have the necessary expertise to plan and thoroughly thrash out the subject. My main interests and knowledge are in approaches to time singularity, particularly the quasi-isotropic and the BKL approaches. Lantonov 09:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

SciAm article

Since you have the actual article, perhaps you could change my "cite web" ref to a cite journal ref? I don't have page number information, etc. No rush or anything. (I realize it's not technically a journal, but the template is just a template.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added the page number. It's in the "News Scan" section of SciAm if you want to add that. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the current reference is sufficient. However, is there a volume or issue number on the cover? (I realize there might not be.) The little pic of the cover they provide is too small for me to tell. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Difference between W and Z bosons and W' and Z' bosons

You removed W' and Z' boson from hypothetical elementary particles on Template:Particles in this edit. According to your edit summary it seems that you have accidentally removed them thinking that they are W and Z bosons, which are not hypothetical. Please notice the difference in usage of apostrophe between W and Z bosons and W' and Z' bosons. Thank you. :-) --antiXt 17:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies. Thanks for the correction. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mitochondrial Eve

I see that you are trying to give it a try. While you are doing that, can you check out comment I just left at Talk:Mitochondrial_Eve#Confused_paragraph? Thanks. Fred Hsu 00:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Species integration nominated for deletion

As someone who has commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article Species integration which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the Talk:Species integration page.

The new nomination/discussion page is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species integration.

Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

disambiguating quantum theory in Noether's theorem

Hi, I just saw that you reverted my disambiguation edit. As a participant in Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, I'd prefer not to have a direct link from a wikipedia mainspace article space article to a disambiguation page. Could the phrase "crucial role in quantum theory" be changed to "crucial role in quantum mechanics and quantum field theory"? Is there any way this could be phrased such that there is no direct link to quantum theory? Thanks, Lisatwo 15:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it Noether's theorem is relevant to all the disambiguation items, so expanding it out would be rather cumbersome. I'd like to leave the link in. Is that going to be a problem?--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it's not a problem at all. Thank you for your time, Lisatwo 19:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert Young (gerontologist)

Perhaps you would be interested in the following "article for deletion." An intelligent opinion from someone informed about both sides of the debate is welcomed. Also note that most articles for deletion close after 5 days, but still no decision has been made after 8 days on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_%28gerontologist%29 74.237.28.5 19:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 20 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Joses. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia - please bear this in mind. Kind regards, Anthøny 21:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by
adding the text "{{unblock|your reason here}}" below this text, or contact me.

Mary Ramsey Wood (again)

Mr. Price, in regards to the Mary Ramsey Wood claim: please note we have only ONE verified supercentenarian parent-sibling combination in history. Further, in this case there's evidence that Mary Wood was much younger, let alone proof to support one person being age 110.

Please note that citing extreme ages for one's parents is very common in longevity claims/myths. In 1939, a man in Illinois died at '110' but his father lived to '120.' In the Bible, Jacob complained about living to only '147' while his fathers (Abraham, Isaac) lived longer. This is a lot different than Emma Tillman having a documented 108-year-old brother. In this case, the evidence clearly contradicts the story as told.Ryoung122 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, yes I am quite aware of this. It's just that there is more than one interpretation of the evidence, and I think both sides should be presented.--Michael C. Price ^talk 02:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites FAR

Ebionites has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Avi 18:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bohmian position beables

I saw your edit to the Bohm interpretation article, with the sentence "For instance measuring the frequency of a radio signal requires a receiver that measures localized photons" serving as a counterexample. I don't understand this claim. In the end, aren't we looking at the positions of a needle that points to one frequency or another?

This might just be me not understanding, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Although I do work in Bohmian theory, it's only as a summer undergraduate research project. Domenic Denicola 16:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to say delocalized photons. Of course your objection still stands, that we seem to absorb information about the universe in a spatial sense (the usual example is the position of a meter's dial). But when we stop and think a bit more we realise that this isn't always the case. For example, the measurement of colour -- which we can directly observe, of course -- is the measurement of a photon's frequency, which requires that the photon be delocalised, by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In this example the delocalisation is confined to the diameter of a pigment molecule in the retina, instead of an antenna, but the effect is a real one.--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hidden Variables a "no go" zone?

To Michael Price,

You have twice now removed additional information from the entry on hidden variables.

Can you explain to me, why my point about the geometrisation of spacetime is considered invalid.

Steven Rosen has written extensively one this subject, and in his "Science Paradox and the Moebius Principle, he and David Bohm communicated at length. This is referenced.

why is the reference concerning Hugh Everett's position on hidden variables negated.

and why are you deleating information concerning evidence from natural science re Chris Illerts work on Conchology which is adequately referenced.

I find it disconcerting that there is such obvious controls and gatekeeping on science pages.

you quip about the military is negating the obvious control over information that the military orchestrates, and the fact that Many Worlds theory is spawned from the Lambda Group, a DEFENCE CORPS foundation is relevant, as is Wheelers commentary on Everetts research as cited.

The discourse on Bohm is undoubtedly biased against his work, and it is most likely due to the threat of HINDU or EASTERN metaphysics seeming to resolve some of the paradoxes inherent in western thought. I advocate that exists serious problems with ALL religions, including EASTERN and ARYAN and including WESTERN, and NEW AGE.

Many of the issues concern paradox.

Some of the issues that have plagued western science have been RAISED by Rosen's analysis to a higher order epistemological framework, based on the moebius principle. The implications of this research are huge, and should therefore be at least considered in the very pages that should permit further information concerning the serious problems that are determined through geometricisations of spacetime.

The use of language which submits half truths is disturbing.

I have not changed anything on this page but have added to its content relevant material that is well cited.

It is obvious to anyone comparing material from many worlds with hidden variables or Bohms work, that there exists a bias that is determined by its allegiance to the dominant mindset. That hidden variables was considered so important by Everett is undeniably important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.147.127 (talk) 06:43, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

• I shall reply in more detail tomorrow, but briefly your material is mostly controversial original research. What can be sourced may be appropriate for a new article.
• You need to discuss it on the appropriate talk pages to a reach a consensus before added, since it is controversial. Wikipedia is NOT a repository for half-baked conspiracy theories -- and certainly not justification for adding them to scientific articles.

As an example of dubious input: where is the relevance of Lambda Corp being a defence organisation mentioned in the literature (please note WP:RS) in reference to manyworlds? BTW Everett did his work before moving to Lambda. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you create new article(s) for "Chris Illerts work on Conchology which is adequately referenced.", Steve Rosen etc (if they don't already exist). --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for your response Michael.

First, I was not fully aware of the discussion protocol, and agree that that is important.

And I agree that wiki is not a repository for HALF BAKED CONSPIRACY THEORIES--and the words HALF BAKED are most important as ANY THEORY THAT PERTAINS TO BE THE TRUTH WHILE OFFERING HALF TRUTHS, or UNPROVABLE THEORIES are the most DANGEROUS THEORY, indeed in all fields be it Science or Religion, the FILTER through which the world is viewed be it a mind conditioned to believe a chain of laws as truths, or a dogma designed to constrain free thought, or an hierarchical system based on a culture of dominance (patriarch, sovereign monarch, "divinely" ordained rights, royal charters etc) that rely on the separation between the general population and the governing elite where the military stands in the field between, and ALL intelligence is gathered- a system that is as old as history itself, whatever the permutations of governance and struggle for global dominion has looked like in the past or looks like now- again an ancient agenda, as is the agenda for AI and military supremacy; or an institutional system that is designed to maintain fragmentation through specialisation, and a steering of research through foundations funded by the multinational co-oporations which themselves are instruments of intelligence gathering- IT IS NAIVE TO PRESUME THAT IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY the AUTHORISED SCIENCE DESIGNED FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION WOULD BE ORGANISED IN SUCH A WAY THAT DID NOT PRESERVE the ECONOMIC, SOCIAL and RELIGIOUS FOUNDATION of the culture in question.

Science is political.

David Bohm's ontological theory is the OPPOSITE of the many worlds theory, and in expanding the notion of causation itself, reintroducing the WHOLISM of PLATO which requires a higherorder and higherdimensional epistemological framework of non dual duality- was aligned with indigenous and Eastern philosophical traditions as THEY EMBRACED PARADOX AS FOUNDATIONAL to reality (complementary superposition of opposites rather than separation of opposites as discrete entities and hence a BASE ONE WHOLE THAT IS DUAL rather than base 2logic) and was the FOUNDATION for the emergent NEW PARADIGM that has not been ALLOWED TO GROUND, due it being in concert with most mindsets EXCEPT THE DOMINANT MINDSET, and through the assistance of the QUAGMIRE of post modernist thought- EXTREME and OPPOSITE PERSPECTIVES DRIVEN by the SEEMING fallibility and POWER of science however in retrospect, the power of the elite to resist the growth of certain memes, until it can SPIN a new story that will expand on the NATURE OF REALITY in a way that does not engender TOO MUCH DAMAGE TO THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE ITSELF, and in doing so USE CULTURAL RELATIVITY as the LEVER rather than the ALARM THAT THERE WERE SERIOUS FLAWS IN THE WHOLE BUILDING OF SCIENCE- FLAWS THAT REVEAL A SCIENCE MUCH CLOSER TO UNVEILING THE ULTIMATE TRUTH IN THE LATE 1800's than is realised- (Higherdimensional Mathematics, electromagnetism and QUATERNIONS, FELIX KLEIN and TOPOLOGICAL resolution to paradox, Sophus LIE and the lineage from here to extremely sophisticated cutting edge science that is often the focus of EXTREME and UNSCIENTIFIC ABUSE of SKEPTICISM- PEAK OIL??????? This is a smoke screen.

Indigenous world views did not develop technologies, NOT because they were more primitive, but due to the MINDSET OF WHOLENESS and INTERCONNECTIVITY. There is no allegiance to a man made boundary (nation state and socisal contract) when one has a mindset of WHOLENESS- and no such thing as an ALIEN.

SO if science is not POLITICAL what is.

HAving said all that it is important that one of the most influential scientist who developed Many WOrlds, Hugh EVERETT, used HIDDEN VARIABLES as the only means to resolve OBJECTIVE PROBABILITIES.

Hidden Variables is WHERE AN UNDERSTANDING OF ONTOLOGY ITSELF IS EMBEDDED

hence the rise of HOLOGRAPHIC PARADIGM - and SERIOUS CRITIQUE AGAINST THE COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION- in the many worlds theory a most SIMPLIFIED VIEW OF HOLOGRAPHIC EMBEDDEDNESS as described by M KAKU and numerous others as the RUSSIAN DOLL notion- a HALF TRUTH that negates the complexity of the micro macro subject object individual and whole local and global relationships.

HOWever, as the UN endorses the HEISENBURGIAN PERSPECTIVE, as the UNDENIABLE TRUTH, as if the TRUTH IS RESOLVED, and has done so since the 50's and with it maintained the SIMPLIFIED POSSIBLE SHAPES OF SPACE (+,-, and +-)that are contested by NUMEROUS THEORIES INCLUDING MANY WORLDS THEORY (superstrings and branes) and the MILLENIUM AGENDA requires SUBMISSION of ALL CULTURAL MINDSETs even though they are arguably of a higherorder epistemological base and are not DOMINATOR MODELS, to the dominant mindset- a tactic which PRESERVES BUSINESS AS USUAL--

THIS IS NOT HALF BAKED CONSPIRACY THEORY- this is just about as full term as it gets, and there is a whole lot more.

Science is POLITICAL

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER

ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE

GODS- YHWH included- have been CREATED simply by MEN HAVING KNOWLEDGE and USING IT AGAINST OTHERS to confound them and control them

The DAWKINS RAVE AGAINST RELIGION is harmful as it FAILS TO POINT OUT THAT THE BIBILE ITSELF REVEALS THE TRUTH OF THE HOODWINKING OF ALL AS A COLONISATION OF THE MIND- read Josuah, know there was an eclipse or predictable comet stike at ALL serious events of the old testament-know that he was a man with knowledge and power and no god, he was a RANDI MAGICIAN nothing more- This is the LIE that is NECESSARY to be preserved , as it preservs the EXPLOITATION OF ALL AS RESOURCE- including humans-

The future of this Planet depends on SCIENCE REVEAL THE WHOLE TRUTH, and not HALF TRUTHS which lead to confusion and no coherence.

Do what you wish to this site, WIKIPEDIA IS THE AUTHORISED VERSION, and if this is known - (in Australia it is public knowledge that the DOD controls much of WIKI) then it does not take much to unravel the mess and reveal the truth behind the BIASED PERSUASIONS that you and your colleagues are constantly engaged in.

LANGUAGE is POWERFUL and SUBTLE tenses - one word against another- can create whole new doorways- this is known too. This is the politics of language, everything is political when the WORLD IS DOMINANT BY ONE SUPERPOWER and a COALITION of ANGLOPHILES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.2.100 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites cleanup of content and sources

Would you be willing to work consensually with other editors to address the content and source disputes on the Ebionites article? I would like to avoid having the article delisted from Featured Article status during FAR if possible. My specific concerns are over misleading statements and sources in the History and Essenes sections of the article, which have been tagged for some time now. Ovadyah 17:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have always sought consensus. So, yes, no problem. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Since our efforts to achieve consensus on these issues have been largely unsuccessful in the past, would you be willing to accept formal mediation? Ovadyah 20:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation by Alec, perhaps -- as long as it is binding. Although the first thing any mediator is likely to ask is for people to try to work together. Off for a few days, anyway. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been almost a month since I posted a request for comment to Alec's user page (Aug. 8th), so I would not look to him as an RFC. BTW, even formal mediation is never binding. It's purpose is to encourage consensus. I am not talking about informal mediation. I am asking if you are willing to participate in a formal mediation process guided by a member of the Mediation Committee. Ovadyah 22:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, when I know what that entails. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I filed a formal request for mediation. You can read the procedure and familiarize yourself with what it entails. If you agree to participate in the mediation process, you will be contacted by the mediator. Ovadyah 23:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am off for a week in an about a hour. So things will have to be resumed later. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you have returned to active editing. Do you intend to participate in formal mediation on the Ebionites article? Three editors and the mediator are waiting for an answer. Ovadyah 12:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibility, as i earlier stated.--Michael C. Price ^talk 19:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to mediation. The request for mediation has been accepted. Ovadyah 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

True mass

I've noticed that you edit some of the same articles I edit/watch, and I'd like you to invite you to improve on a new article I started on true mass. I started it in response to the term being used on the definition of planet article without any mention of what it meant. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't help much there, I'm afraid: I've never heard of the term, but I'll look in as it progresses. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I kept clobbering your edits. I'm done with Moore's Law now. ---- CharlesGillingham 20:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation - Ebionites

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ebionites, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am off for a week in an about a hour. So things will have to be resumed later. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Decoherence, David Bohm and MWI

Dear Micheal Price

can you explain to me why the entries concerning David Bohm diminish the value of his theories yet as is seen in the entry concerning decoherence as follows- Bohm's mechanics and his hidden variable theory form much of the basis of MWI and yet in the writing of Michio Kaku eg Parallel worlds, Bohm is not mentioned at all.

"Before an understanding of decoherence was developed the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics treated wavefunction collapse as a fundamental, a priori process. Decoherence provides an explanatory mechanism for the appearance of wavefunction collapse and was first developed by David Bohm in 1952 who applied it to Louis DeBroglie's pilot wave theory, producing Bohmian mechanics[3][4], the first successful hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics. Decoherence was then used by Hugh Everett in 1957 to form the core of his many-worlds interpretation[5] . However decoherence was largely[6] ignored for many years, and not until the 1980s [7] [8]/90s did decoherent-based explanations of the appearance of wavefunction collapse become popular, with the greater acceptance of the use of reduced density matrices[2]. The range of decoherent interpretations have subsequently been extended around the idea, such as consistent histories. Some versions of the Copenhagen Interpretation have been rebranded to include decoherence."

Is it due to his work leading to nil potent algebras, and the work of Sophus Lie a collegue of Felix Klein, which forms part of the basis of Ruggero Santilli's theory of hadronic science and isoeuclidean mathematics which is in wikipedia the subject of serious attack and was one of the first major assaults unleashed by the SKEPTICS pages which have since been removed?

It seems that the MWI is pitched AGAINST Bohm's ontological science, yet quantum computing relies on a holographic theory that emerged from Bohmian mechanics, indeed was named by Bohm and Carl Pribram independently.

In order to realise some COHERENCE in SCIENCE rather than the gross relativity and hence presumed fallibility of science (Horganism) which is constantly raised in order to resist changing attitudes to such problems as climate change for example, and the ethical use of technologies (conflicting reports, conflicting interpretations etc)it seems important that entries concerning Bohm are carefully considered. As they stand there is sense of half truth about them. while it may be true to say MOST scientist do not agree with this, it is equally true to say that there WAS an emerging paradigm focussed about Bohms work which seems to have been redirected into a completely different theoretical posturing that ultimate EXCLUDES bohm's theories.

If you cannot answer this, can you point to some forum where such questions may be asked with relevance to the ongoing efforts through Wikipedia to reinvest science not as a mere material science, but as a true physics of ultimate reality which I believe is possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.240.146.51 (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote (most of/all) the paragraph you're quoting. I mentioned Bohm's early work on decoherence (although it wasn't called that at the times) from my reading of Bohm's and Everett's papers. I guess that no one else has made the same observation simply because they are not interested -- the most memorable aspect of Bohm's approach is the particle buffeted around by the "quantum potential", so naturally people have focussed on that. With Everett of course it is the "parallel universes" that grab the attention. That and the fact that most people don't understand what either Bohm or Everett were saying. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)