User talk:Tercer

In your change to Space Elevator, you made a couple of edits in the form For a constant-stress cable with no safety margin, the cross-section-area as a function of distance from Earth's center is given by<ref name="aravind" />. That results in "given by^[1]", which is an incomplete statement in text - grammatically problematic. In a number of contexts, only the text will be available, the annotations will not, so the statement will be impossible to interpret. A better form for this particular one would have been:

For a constant-stress cable with no safety margin, the equation to calculate the cross-section-area as a function of distance from Earth's center:^[2]

In that form, the citation is available if the reader wants to pursue who said it, but the text statement is complete without needing it. If you really feel the need to identify the citation in text, it would be better to do something like an APA citation ... Earth's center (Aravind 2007:^[3]).

That's quite rare in Wikipedia, we prefer the citations be entirely in the footnotes. The text itself should be primarily explanatory, and the rare cases where it's important to make clear in the text who provides some information are usually handled with According to Aravind, for a .... That's clumsy and usually only comes into play when strongly partisan opinions are contraste, and/or a statement is intended to be disparaged by identifying a questionable author. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 17:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

What I meant is that the cross-section is given by the equation, not by the reference. I just put the reference there to make it clear where the equation came from. Similarly, in the next case, I meant that the taper ratio is given by the table. Although I must admit that this was unclear, I'll reformulate it. Tercer (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that the construct "given by^[4]" is a problem. When you give a citation, you are specifying that this is where the information comes from. You don't say "given by" followed by no text. If absolutely necessary to specify that it comes from a specific source, you need to use a construct that conveys the information in text. You can't have text be continued into the reference. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the text is not continued into the reference, it is continued into the equation. Tercer (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah. Now I understand what you are trying to do. What that should be, then, is "given by the following equation.(reference)". Either that, or put the reference on the equation itself. References are generally at the end of a sentence, and by having it at the end of a line, the way it reads is that you intend the reference to be the end of sentence. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought it was clear enough, but the fact that you misunderstood it shows that it wasn't. I rephrased it as you wanted. I never put references on the equations themselves, because that makes them even harder to read. Tercer (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

• Optical conductivity (AfD discussion)

I've checked this out with Materialscientist and I leave it with you. I have to go and do something else for Drmies. Uncle G (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Saw your mentione on the article Discussion page. you probably thinking that how this new account is doing so advance stuff. (i should probably put this on my user page) i was game developer for Gameloft i have recently left my job to work on a indi project with my friends and i have a special ability to pick stuff up and curiosity to learn everything quickly so that why you probably suspicious on me about how i know all this stuff. Thanks Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 14:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Nah i have an old account created like probably 5 years ago and i have made like 400 edits probably but can't remember the username it was on my old iphone. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 14:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

You need to disclose that on your user page, otherwise people will assume that you are using another account for illegitimate purposes like sockpuppeting or ban evasion. It's easy to find out what your old username was, just look at the edit history of any page you edited with your old account. Tercer (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

• Bohr–Einstein debates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A fair amount of new content was added the other day. If you have a spare moment (ha ha, who has those anymore), you might check it out. XOR'easter (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I skimmed through the new stuff, and really don't like it. The language used is caricatural. I don't have time to engage with it properly, though, I'm sorry. Tercer (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Well, they are cool. Put yourself in the 19th century mentality, where units were still based on arbitrary physical artifacts, and then comes Planck, and shows one can make them from fundamental constants of nature, without even referencing specific materials (I wonder whether he would accept making them from properties of elementary particles, if he knew about those). People seem to think their significance is much deeper, though. Tercer (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I've learned that over the years, there have been sporadic efforts to get a guideline for reliable sourcing on scientific topics off the ground, basically by cloning WP:MEDRS. These have never gotten very far; see WP:SCIRS and the discussions in the archives from 2010 and 2019(!). I had the thought that it might be simpler to advance something with narrower scope, so I started working up math-and-physics-specific advice here. I'm not sure if this is the right path to follow, but it does seem like having something along these lines would be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Please notice that WP:reliable sources are not to be removed from wikipedia. Once research is peer-reviewed and accepted by the scientific community, it doesn't really matter who adds it to Wikipedia. In other words, reliable sources and neutral statements must not be removed with the criterion of WP:PROMOTION PhysicsVoice (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

It definitely does matter who adds it. See WP:SELFCITE. It's a clear conflict of interest. Since you're adding the same citation to several pages, it is also considered citation spam, see WP:CITESPAM. Tercer (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

Thanks again. Let it be highlighted that citation spamming is the "illegitimate" or "improper" use. "It should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia"PhysicsVoice (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

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

Your wrong judgment and unsubstantiated perspective violates WP:Assume_good_faith. No further discussion with you. Period! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhysicsVoice (talk • contribs) 20:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Take a break, they said. Work on obscure subjects that nobody gets invested in, they said. And then. No wonder I'm so burned out on this place. XOR'easter (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

My advice is to let janitorial work to other people. I really appreciate your help, but it seems you are sacrificing your own well-being. Don't worry, there are plenty of people that can do clean up, Wikipedia won't fall apart if you focus on the parts that you find fun. Tercer (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Would you believe that this is me scaling back? I purged my watchlist, stopped checking AfD, etc. My goal right now is a rewrite of Newton's laws of motion, because it is important, highly trafficked, and better-defined than completely amorphous topics where we have no hope of crafting a decent article. The current page is not in great shape, for the same reasons that so many pages aren't in great shape. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a good target for improvement. It is important, in a bad state, and has very little potential for drama. Tercer (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, the pandemic is keeping me out of my office, and so the selection of books I can pull off the shelf is limited. I could probably do work on Bell's theorem with what I have lying around, but the traffic there is lower and the potential for drama much higher. XOR'easter (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bell's theorem is what I have always wanted to do, and always postponed it because I wasn't in the mood to fight. Well, right now I'm going crazy with the end of the semester so I won't be able to do anything. Tercer (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but you deleted "12:55, 5 February 2022‎ Tercer talk contribs‎ 26,094 bytes −1,192‎ Undid revision 1069924568 by Msvex (talk) removing self-promotion thank Tag: Undo " I wrote about an very important context in Independence regarding its visualization that is widely applied in statistical practices. This can be found in referred publications. If you could restore the previous version, it will be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msvex (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments at the bottom of talk pages and sign them with four tildes ~~~~. I can't look at what your edit was, it has been removed from the history of the page as well, but I removed it because you were adding a citation to Albert Vexler, which is the only thing you ever do in Wikipedia. Please note that Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own work. Tercer (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

~~~~ Dear Tercer, if I referred and linked to Vexler then that does not say "Visualization in Independence" and other fields have no chance to be valuable. Pls stop judging.

The four tildes should be added at the end of your comment and without the "nowiki" tags. The problem is that the only thing you do is cite Vexler, indicating that you are here to promote his work rather than build an encyclopedia. See WP:NOTHERE, WP:COI, and WP:SELFCITE. Tercer (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry again, but texts with the citations were done by me and the title "Visualization in Independence" and then deleted by you. Thanks 00:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msvex (talk • contribs)

There is also a Wikipedia article on a certain Albert Vexler which appears to be a personal vanity project of the same person. It has occasionally been edited by user Msvex. Richard Gill (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Articles for Deletion. If you think an article does not belong in Wikipedia, you propose it for AfD, where it is discussed and maybe deleted. Since you're not familiar with it I created the proposal myself, here. Tercer (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

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

I was doing some deferred maintenance on Planck units and Planck length, and now I'm not so sure we need two separate pages. I think Planck length is the last survivor of a population of separate pages that now redirect to Planck units (like Planck time, which has been a redirect since May 2020). The sections of Planck length are "Value", "History", and "Theoretical significance", which are all redundant with the main article; and "Planck length and Euclidean geometry", which just spells out the heuristic calculations alluded to in the previous section in (maybe undue) detail. Thoughts? XOR'easter (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about that; the Planck length page doesn't have nonsense that needs to be removed. I checked the calculations in the "Planck length and Euclidean geometry" section, and they're legit. Not terribly insightful, but probably WP:DUE for an article specifically about the Planck length. Moreover, there are interesting things to be said about it, such as the difficulty of implementing it as an actual minimal length due to Lorenz covariance. So live and let live. Tercer (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder why you have removed the section in Kepler problem about the solution in Pedal coordinates in August 2021. I do find this solution to be not only the quickest and easiest (since it requires basically only algebra) but also quite novel. Do you oppose the solution or the fact that I (the author) am writing about it. I am asking only so I understand the rules around here. PetrBlaschke (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Only the fact that you, the author, is the one writing about it. Wikipedia has several policies against scientists promoting their own work. The idea is that the promotion should happen through the usual channels (papers, conference talks, textbooks), and if the community picks it up, then it is worth including in Wikipedia. On the other hand, if nobody but the author cares about some result or technique, it means it's not relevant enough to be covered in Wikipedia. Tercer (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

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

The deletion review has finally been closed, with the statement Allow speedy renomination due to deficiencies in the AfD process. I'm not sure I'll have the will today to wade back into that... XOR'easter (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I nominated it again. I can't let this stand. It's being ridiculous that Wikipedia should be used for self-promotion of a piece of incorrect mathematics. Tercer (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed you moved some material from Bell's theorem to Bell test. If you're in the mood for further reorganization in that corner, what do you think about the article Local hidden-variable theory? The title suggests it would be a subtopic of Hidden-variable theory, but the content reads like a fork of Bell's theorem. XOR'easter (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I think they are logically independent; hidden-variable theories have the remarkable advantage of existing, whereas local hidden-variable theories only show up as a hypothesis to be falsified. Hence why hidden-variable theories have been developed to cover non-relativistic quantum mechanics, while local hidde-variable theories never go beyond contrived models for some correlations. That said, one could definitely improve Local hidden-variable theory; indeed it mostly covers the same material as Bell's theorem, but poorly. One could for example show the LHV model Bell did for the EPR correlations. Tercer (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, as you recall, you wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearly not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Wikimedian,

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

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

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

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

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the removal of the numerological calculation of the constant with the motivation "unreliable source". (137.0359990900848 etc.)

Numerology is not a science. The chapter is called "Numerological". Therefore, scientific references are not possible and your demand is baseless and logically absurd. References proving the correctness of the calculations are enough. Scientific journals do not accept articles on the numerology of constants. The source can never be reliable, and thus you generally protest against Wikipedia's right to publish numerology. In this case, delete the mention of Eddington, given that his calculation is much worse. Is that so? I consider the decision to delete it a deliberate obstacle to the dissemination of information. Марина Безух (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you revise your nomination text using more standard and NPOV language, for instance citing OR, SIGCOV etc. As it stands your nomination could be subject to Speedy Keep on procedural grounds. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I think sincerity is more important, I'm willing to take the chance. Tercer (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I had corrected a statement of Bell's inequality. You seem to have reverted it. Let me point out why the inequality as written is wrong. Instead of integral over all lambda, to illustrate I will just use discrete values of lambda and hence a summation over lambda, and all having same measure. In fact, let's work with only two discrete values of lambda, say l1 and l2. Also, for simplicity assume that the two detector functions A and B are same (as the inequality is supposed to work for all A and B and all ${\displaystyle {\vec {a}},{\vec {b}},{\vec {c}}}$.

Now, suppose ${\displaystyle A({\vec {b}},l_{1})=1,A({\vec {b}},l_{2})=1}$ and ${\displaystyle A({\vec {c}},l_{1})=-1,A({\vec {c}},l_{2})=-1}$. Let ${\displaystyle A({\vec {a}},l_{1})=A({\vec {a}},l_{2})=1}$.

So, then ${\displaystyle P({\vec {a}},{\vec {b}})=1/2*(1*1+1*1)=1}$ (in the hidden-variable defn). and ${\displaystyle P({\vec {a}},{\vec {c}})=1/2*(1*-1+1*-1)=-1}$ So, left hand side of the inequality being ${\displaystyle |P({\vec {a}},{\vec {b}})-P({\vec {a}},{\vec {c}})|=2}$.

The right hand of the inequality as written is ${\displaystyle 1+P({\vec {b}},{\vec {c}})}$. Now, ${\displaystyle P({\vec {b}},{\vec {c}})=1/2(1*-1+1*-1)=-1}$, so the RHS is 1-1 =0

Hence the inequality as written does not hold. THe inequality I wrote is the correct inequality and is in fact provable using Cauchy Schwartz or any similar means. Ustad NY (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

No, the inequality is not supposed to work for all A and B. It's derived from the assumption that ${\displaystyle A({\vec {a}},\lambda )=-B({\vec {a}},\lambda )}$, that is, perfect singlet anti-correlation, which your counterexample violates. Tercer (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, that makes more sense. This section is written in quite an ambiguous fashion, typical of Physicists :) Ustad NY (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

While we are at improving the presentation, here are a few more comments. Like I said, you do not have to assume that A and B are perfectly anticorrelated. What can be done is the following. We can replace A(\vec{a}, lambda) by D(\vec{a}^*, lambda) and B(\vec{a}, lambda) by same D(\vec{b}^*, lambda), where \vec{a}^* is \vec{a} with new vector components added which represent that this is detector A.

Similarly, \vec{b}^* is \vec{b} with new vector components added (orthogonal to those added for A) which represent that this detector B. These new components for A and B are orthogonal, so \vec{a} \cdot \vec{b} = \vec{a}^* \cdot \vec{b}^*, i.e. the inner product remains the same (important for the quantum correlation P).

So, then we can now write Q(\vec{a}, \vec{b}) = \sum_lambda D(\vec{a}, lambda)D(\vec{b}, lambda).

A simple application o Cauchy Swartz then implies that

|Q(\vec{a}, \vec{b} - Q(\vec{a}, \vec{c}|^2 \leq (1- Q(\vec{b}, \vec{c})^2.

This way readers are not left to guess the magic the article is profounding without proof.

Ustad NY (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I have already edited the article to include the missing assumption. There is no point in trying to improve the original Bell inequality, though, that section is only of historical interest. It is anyway already known how to remove this assumption: this is how you get the CHSH inequality. Tercer (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Another option is to change the definition of P(\vec{a}, \vec{b}) for the hidden variable setting to be integral over -D(\vec{a}, lambda}*D(\vec{b}, lambda), instead of calling it A and B and then say these are anti-correlated.

Now an easy application of Cauchy-Swartz implies this inequality as written (and not the one I suggested). Ustad NY (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Changing the definition is not an option: that section is about Bell's paper, and we'll use his definition. Tercer (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Let me word it a different way, I will explicitly (as a admin) request that you to reword your statement since it currently violates our policies about not being WP:UNCIVIL to other contributors since it is explicitly rude and disrespectful by mocking a person. Failure to do so will be escalated to a uninvolved admin. Please consider this a formal warning. Sohom (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I will not reword my statement. Feel free to escalate it to whoever you want. Tercer (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

On reflection and thinking about it, I won't be escalating this since on a reading it does not look as egregious as I initially thought. Sorry for the escalation!

(For future reference a "this is why it is not X, Y and Z" would have been better on your end, but I do realize/confess that I was somewhat on edge earlier today for unrelated reasons which led to me misjudging the situation) Sohom (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm glad to hear that. Tercer (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)