Talk:Matter wave clock

The viewpoint is assumed in this article that the formula ω₀ = mc² / ħ shows that there is a physical time periodicity intrinsic to the matter particle.

This assumed viewpoint ignores the more obvious physical meaning of the observations. That is that the diffraction of a beam of particles of matter is usually done with a material grating, such as a crystal, of which the spatial periodicity explains the wave-like effects. The time cyclicity is indirect, coming from the velocity of the matter particle, the fact that changes of momentum due to interaction with the crystal are quantal, the spatial periodicity of the crystal, and the link between velocity and momemtum. This was pointed out by Duane in the 1920s, but is not recalled as often as it ought to be. Looking out of the window of a train, you can predict the times between the passages of the telegraph posts if you know the distance between them and if you know the speed of the train. The train is not working as a clock; it is just going at a practically constant speed. The timing is calculated or observed by the passenger, not provided by the train. The distances between telegraph posts provide the periodicity. Photons have intrinsic periodicity, but for particles of matter, it is very dubious.

The idea of a caesium atom having a physical intrinsic frequency receives no support whatsoever from the evidence or reasoning presented in the article, yet it seems to be one of the main concepts that drives the article. In Wikiese, it is a point of view. Moreover, a point of view that is not balanced by more established and reliable points of view.

The clock timing here derives from a difference frequency between lasers. The mass of the particle comes into it just because mass is one of the factors of momentum, and the momentum changes of the particle are quantal, with absorption and emission of photons. The timing here does not come from a demonstrated temporal periodicity of the particle, although the article implies that it does so.

The clock is tied to the mass of the particle, but the timing is not directly derived from that. The Compton period is an arbitrary mathematical object, not a period of a physical process intrinsic to the particle.

The present article cites some peer-reviewed papers, but they do not have the weight required for reliable sources. This article is speculation inadequately supported by editorial workup, devoid of reliable sources.

One gets the impression that the purpose of the present article is to sneak in, without adequate reliable sourcing, the original research of D. Dolce which appears in the article as follows.

"Donatello Dolce has gone further, by incorporating matter wave clocks into the fabric of spacetime. He imposes the periodicty as an initial constraint on the particle, i.e. applying an intrinsic periodicity (IP) to the geometrodynamics of spacetime. Such a constraint of IP is in effect a quantization condition and the resulting cyclic dynamics are claimed to formally match ordinary relativistic Quantum Mechanics. In this way, a classical conception of reality is said to lead to a fully quantum description, including such non-classical phenomena as wave-particle duality, uncertainty and nonlocality. Dolce's model thus represents not only a novel derivation of quantum mechanics but also a novel interpretation.^[1]"

That work of Dolce may be valuable, but in the view of Wikipedia policy, it is also original research laced with synthesis, and its value does not overrule the Wikipedia policy that forbids those things. Its relevance to the evidence in the article is open to question.

The reason I refer to the impression, that the purpose of the present article is to sneak in, without adequate reliable sourcing, that original research by D. Dolce, is found here, here, and here.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Phew! The important point about Chjoaygame's argument is that it is not questioning whether the so=called matter wave clocks work, but rather how they work. As far as I can tell, the researchers who developed them call them "matter wave clocks", and if they are not reliable sources on the subject then who is? If the cited articles are not reliable and working devices by this name have not in fact been discussed or constructed, I think we need a better case than Chjoaygame presents above. For example, maybe we need the correct name for these devices, the appropriate explanation of how they actually work, and a suitable citation to back that up. If all that already exists in another article, then please, lead me to it!

The claim that matter has no intrinsic periodicity is tantamount to the claim that it does not have wave-like properties such as frequency or wavelength, i.e. that wave-particle duality is just a PoV. This claim is itself a well-known minority PoV and should not be drawn into the main discussion.

Dolce's work is indeed on a less sound footing and as I posted in the previous topic I am not confident it belongs here anyway. That's why I started the previous topic and linked to it from the WikiProject talk page. Apparently this is "sneaking in". Well, really, I think a little more WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL is in order here. In the absence of significant input from more knowledgeable editors, I have been attempting to help a new user write about what Chjoaygame accepts is "valuable" work, perhaps now we can get a sensible discussion of its merits? And talking of throwing policy links around, Chjoaygame misunderstands the nature of our policy on original research and synthesis: it tells editors how to write, it does not tell us how Dolce must write: it is sufficient that we can source Dolce reliably, just as we can reliably source claims for the existence of flying saucers even though the claims are not in themselves verifiable.

So please, let's take time to calm down and focus on the matter (sic) in hand, and not throw out so many wild accusations. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Chjoaygame, you're talking about the claim

"there is something about a matter particle which oscillates with period h/(mc²)".

I think you're saying "It is possible to interpret the experiment while rejecting this claim." But it seems to me, it is also possible to interpret the experiment as deriving from this claim. One of the philosophical lessons I got out of learning about the Schrodinger picture vs Heisenberg picture is that if you ask questions about what exactly is changing in a system, the answer may not be unique / physical. Clearly Mueller is able to derive everything in quantum mechanics while imagining that there is something about a matter particle which oscillates with period h/(mc²). So I think that elevates this kind of description as a legitimate (but not unique) way of describing the situation. Indeed, it is supposed to be a description that makes it especially easy and convenient to calculate GR effects in AMO experiments. So maybe it's a very good way of describing the situation. Do you agree? (Sorry if I'm misunderstanding.) --Steve (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Steve, yes I think that is well put. Thank you.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Editor Steelpillow writes: "The claim that matter has no intrinsic periodicity is tantamount to the claim that it does not have wave-like properties such as frequency or wavelength, i.e. that wave-particle duality is just a PoV."

His use of "tantamount" and of "i.e." indicate that he does not intend to deal with what I wrote, but instead to deal with his re-interpretation of what I wrote. I cannot be expected to defend his re-interpretation of what I wrote.

Editor Steelpillow verges on misquoting me. He writes: ″ what Chjoaygame accepts is "valuable" work ". I wrote "That work of Dolce may be valuable," not 'That work of Dolce is valuable'.

Editor Steelpillow is a very skilled editor, and knows the use of citing such things as "WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL", and other rhetorical devices. But he does not attempt to deal with my concern about the reason for his creating this article, the reason as indicated here, here, and here. I repeat, there is not yet a reliable source for the work of D. Dolce. Editor N4tur4le writes: "I firmly believe that this subject is of interest to Wikipedia readers for its novelty, its historical motivations and its pedagogic value." But he offers no reliable source about the work of D. Dolce. In the absence of reliable sources about the work of D. Dolce, I think this makes the writing about it by Editor Steelpillow and by Editor N4tur4le original research. Editor Steelpillow, however, seems to want to put it into the Wikipedia.

Editor Steelpillow asks to be led to it. I cannot lead him to a reliable source about the new research that he is reporting, but I can point to old stuff that deals with the question in hand. The direct statement view of matter diffraction is presented by Alfred Landé in several books. Landé is citing William Duane. This view is not widely cited but it is valid physics enunciated by a respected author quoting another, and Wikipedia should try to put a balance of viewpoints, not just go with the dominant one. This is especially relevant when the purpose of Dolce's work cited in the present article is to radically revise the dominant one. Two relevant books by Landé are Foundations of Quantum Theory: a Study in Continuity and Symmetry, Yale University Press, New haven, 1955; New Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge Universty Press, London 1965. It is customary in this area to ridicule the views of that ignorant fool Albert Einstein. At least in this instance, for balance, Editor Steelpillow should likewise, I think, duly ridicule the views of Landé.

Editor Steve is putting what I would call a sophisticated case, indeed a very commonly stated sophisticated case. I view it as putting a metaphor in place of a direct statement, and preferring the metaphor to the direct statement. For myself, I prefer the direct statement. Editor Steve, to make his case, apparently misquotes me. He writes in quotation marks: "there is something about a matter particle with oscillates with period h/(mc²)". But I wrote "The viewpoint is assumed in this article that the formula ω₀ = mc² / ħ shows that there is a physical time periodicity intrinsic to the matter particle."

I have registered my view, but I am not inclined to try to defend it further.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Editor Steelpillow has now responded in a favorable way that I have to admit I did not expect, and so I am happy to accept that my use of the word sneak was excessive and I now withdraw it. Consequently the subject matter of the article is now clear. It is about clocks that are calibrated by reference to the mass of a free particle.

In this light, I will still say that the use of the metaphorical account strikes me as inferior to the use of the direct account of matter waves, and I think that the direct account at least deserves a show. It is the quantal change of momentum that provides the link between the mass of the particle and time.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a stub article. There is plenty of scope for those who understand these things and have references to hand, to get stuck in. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Rather than discussing this matter at interminable length both here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, perhaps someone who thinks it should be deleted could start the AfD process off? Djr32 (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

While the present article/stub now simply reports certain new experiments, without textbook references, and therefore technically might be regarded as inadequately sourced, for myself I am not about to attack it to the extent of taking it to AfD. I would abstain from voting if it were taken there by someone else. Accordingly, since the recent changes to it, I have removed the present talk-page heading that I wrote saying it should be deleted. I think that Editor Djr32 is referring to discussion at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Physics#AfC submission - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elementary Cycles. That discussion is about another proposed article, not the present stub.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear Chjoaygame I would like to ask you to reconsider your criticisms about the removed part written by Steelpillow:

"Donatello Dolce has gone further, by incorporating matter wave clocks into the fabric of spacetime. He imposes the periodicty as an initial constraint on the particle, i.e. applying an intrinsic periodicity (IP) to the geometrodynamics of spacetime. Such a constraint of IP is in effect a quantization condition and the resulting cyclic dynamics are claimed to formally match ordinary relativistic Quantum Mechanics. In this way, a classical conception of reality is said to lead to a fully quantum description, including such non-classical phenomena as wave-particle duality, uncertainty and nonlocality. Dolce's model thus claims not only a novel derivation of quantum mechanics but also a novel interpretation.^[2]"

This statement is given in a peer-reviewed paper (contrarily to Muller's quotations given in a non peer-reviewed proceeding and there are not direct journal references to very its effective publication). Wikipedia consider peer-reviewed paper as reliable sources (though this could be not sufficient to justify the creation of an article). Similar statements are given in about 15 other peer-reviewed papers. Therefore I would like to invite you to restore that part of the article. N4tur4le (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

In response to the above comment by N4tur4le I have now recondsidered my criticisms about the removed part written by Steelpillow. I have also reconsidered my view on this article as a whole.

When this article appeared I immediately felt it should not have been written, because its purpose was improper, namely to evade the already advanced process of assessment of a proposed Article for Creation, as at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elementary Cycles, as indicated here, here, and here. Moreover, this article has too many logical flaws. Since then, another editor, Xaggi, has pointed out a defiency that he thinks must be remedied, but this has not been done. New suggestions by N4tur4le under the heading below #Title: de Broglie internal clock is proposing to re-name the article, and is proposing to extend and deepen the parts of the article that I most objected to, and that Editor Steelpillow magnanimously removed in response to my view, which might be interpreted to mean that he thought that my objections to those parts of the article were justified.

At first I suggested that the article should be deleted, and later withdrew my suggestion when the most objectionable part was removed. On learning of the defect that must be remedied, I changed my mind and informally proposed speedy deletion, but I did not want to chase it through a process on the Article for Deletion pages.

Editor Steelpillow says it is only stub. My opinion is that this is a way of creating an article when one hasn't done the homework on resources that should go into the creation of an article. Editor Steelpillow indicates that he thinks that others should finish the task, writing of "more reading for my ever-expanding do-do list." And that "those who understand these things and have references at hand". One can read into that what one thinks it really means.

Editor Steelpillow writes "I do not WP:own this article." But then he writes "I would certainly regard a nomination for speedy delete to be invidious." Impassioned word, that "invidious".

Editor Steelpillow says " That is how the WP:stub system works."

I would say the present course of events shows that this kind of stub writing is harmful and damaging and that one should refrain from it.

The problems with the article are that it is not well structured and not well reasoned, that it is not adequately sourced, that it is or tends to be WP:OR or WP:SYN, and that it has spawned the above proposals of N4tur4le that look like promotion. The above proposals by N4tur4le look like an attempt to evade the already advanced process of assessment of his proposed Article for Creation, as at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elementary Cycles.

I think the assessment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Elementary Cycles is the right place for much of the matter mentioned above by Editor N4tur4le, and that it is not a good thing to let it spread into the present article or its talk page.

With the proposals of Editor N4tur4le I am moved again to change my mind. I think this article should be deleted.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The insinuation that I tried to sneak Dolce's work in under the radar is repeated here, followed by a lot of hot air. "One can read into that what one thinks it really means" betrays a continuing failure to assume good faith. Go nominate this article for deletion or shut up. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful advice.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Without having read the above discussion I would like to remark that the whole concept of the Compton clock ("a rock is a clock") is subject of a controversial debate with prominent people on both sides. The opponents' view can be found, e.g., in arXiv:1106.3412 and arXiv:1201.1778. This debate must be part of the article. Xaggi (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, especially for those links. More reading for my ever-expanding to-do list! — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I could see that there were problems with this article, but I did not feel inclined to impose my ill-informed opinions, beyond removing a particularly objectionable item, which the author magnanimously did. Now I see that there are more problems with it than I saw at first.

Therefore I now think that the article should not have been written when it was. It is inadequately resourced, on the evidence of the above comment by Editor Xaggi, and the admission of the initiator of the article. Besides that, I think that the basic reasoning, of the authors of the research papers that the article reports, is biased and in need of critical comment on grounds other than those indicated in the arXiv papers adverted to just above by Xaggi. It is not adequate to say something like 'Oh, this is just a stub; all will come right in due course.'

Editor Xaggi says that the comments of the arXiv article must be part of the article. Operationally, the just-above response of Editor Steelpillow is inadequate; he merely says "More reading for my ever-expanding to-do list." This is not enough response to a soundly stated view that the material he proposes to read is a must for the article.

It can be troublesome to edit an article that has been started as a stub by someone who did not give it a suitable logical structure or even a suitable title. It is better that the person who starts the article give it proper logical structure and title based on adequate resources.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper to report the latest suggestions that lack reliable sources.

Therefore I respectfully ask the author of the article, Steelpillow, to further exercise his magnanimity by speedily deleting the present article, and waiting until some future time when it has been adequately resourced by a proper investigation of reliable sources that reflect a fair range of respected points of view. I make this request because I do not think it reasonable to drag this through a long process of AfD debate. The effort would be better spent studying physics than debating on Wikipedia talk pages.

For the procedure, I suggest the use of the template which I will write here with single braces {.} but is activated when it is written with double braces {{.}}. It is {db|reason offered by person who wants speedy deletion}. I think this is the relevant proper procedure, but I stand to be corrected. Details are at Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion#Speedy deletion.Chjoaygame (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree. I do not WP:own this article, stub or no stub. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The device appears to exist and to provide timekeeping as advertised. The mere fact that its designers' rationale has been so visibly criticised in itself lends the subject WP:notability. If anyone knows a more accepted and verifiable name for it then move the article. If anyone knows an acceptable and verifiable conventional description of how the device works, then write it. If anyone knows more about the controversy, Xaggi has kindly given us a starter. That is how the WP:stub system works. If you want to propose it for deletion, do your own work. But I would certainly regard a nomination for speedy delete to be invidious. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't want to propose it for deletion.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear all,

in order to extract something useful from these discussions I propose to rename this to de Broglie internal clock (or, equivalently, phase-harmony, which describes the phase of the internal clock of the particle), linked to the corresponding section in Luis de Broglie article. This will allow us to historical origin of the ideas and to mention the recent developments described in article Matter wave clock and in Elementary cycles, Penrose citations, and all the other relevant aspects (and possible controversies). In comparison with Elementary cycles the present article on Matter wave clock does not seem to have more strength. Muller peer-reviewed papers are experimental tests to the particle clock, at they do not anything new to the idea of particle clock. Particle clock has bee tested experimentally before Muller:Catillon at all in 2007 link Experimental observation compatible with the particle internal clock. The article MAtter wave clock is mainly based on arXiv:1312.6449 Quantum mechanics, matter waves, and moving which is Muller sole paper about quantum mechanics, it is a non peer-reviewed proceeding and I had not the possibility to check explicitly its publication. Therefore, as this paper is not a reliable source, I recommend to not use it for quotation. I can provide strong reliable sources (books) for (almost) all the claims in sections Applications and Implications. The name Matter wave clock is arbitrary, probably more than Elementary Cycles: it does not even appear in Muller's papers. In conclusion I think that a wikipedia article on particle internal clocks is a good idea, but it must be based on mode solid historical background, with title de Broglie internal clock which surely represents the origin of all these idea and experiments, it is discussed in textbooks and it has a general interest as it is at the base of quantum mechanics (wave-particle duality). Its importance is explicitly stated by de Broglie referred to the phase of the internal clock of particles The Wave-Particle Dualism: A Tribute to Louis De Broglie on His 90th Birthday

A man never has more that a great idea in his life. If I ever had such idea, it is cerntainly the phase harmony that I have expressed in the first chapter of my PhD thesis in 1924 [de Broglie]

de Broglie Thesis: On the Theory of Quanta N4tur4le (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this valuable translation by the admirable Kracklauer. I think it important to recall that de Broglie reconsidered his views and published a reconsidered view in a book translated into English as The Current Interpretation of Wave Mechanics: a Critical Study, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1964.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I oppose such a move. As it stands, this article is about the Compton clock and related devices, as well as the controversial matter wave theory. "de Broglie internal clock" refers only to the theory and is not appropriate for the devices, while "matter wave clock" covers both subjects. Also, we already have an article on the theory of Matter waves, with de Broglie wave as a redirect, so even if the clock device gets split off to its own article, what remains here should follow the same naming convention. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the de Broglie internal clock is appropiate for devices. As said above, "Muller peer-reviewed papers are experimental tests to the particle clock, at they do not anything new to the idea of particle clock. Particle clock has bee tested experimentally before Muller:1) Catillon at all in 2007 link, 2) Experimental observation compatible with the particle internal clock." Morover it is a "controversial aspect of matter wave theory. N4tur4le (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)