User talk:Birge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Re: Sixteen Feet vandalism

Thanks for the compliment, and you're very welcome. Vandalism-cleaning is tedious but I'm glad to do it. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 08:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Institute of Physics Publishing spam

Thanks for cleaning this up! It's a hassle, I know.--A. B. 17:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! This could be the tip of a big iceberg. That's even asssuming 75% of these are legitimate links posted by non-IOP users to specific papers.--A. B. 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap! There's over 200 links in there. Very sketchy... Anyway, thanks for the feedback. We'll see if the varmint links come back. Birge 00:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum Decoherence Crank

Next time you

(1) ask for someone's qualifications

(2) call them a crank

(3) revert their work

you should

(1) wait for their response

(2) consider your own position

(3) read what they've written, look at the sources and consider whether you really understand stuff such as phase space and tensor product before pronoucing about who's spouting "gibberish". --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I truly apologize for calling you a crank publicly. That was a mistake and I regret it. However, I've read enough of your stuff to know that you don't understand physics, and I'm not the first one to point that out. Thus, I didn't believe there was any point in awaiting the response of somebody I've completely lost trust in. You collect sources here and there and clearly understand a great deal about physics and math, and can regurgitate just enough to sound plausible, but you clearly don't understand what you're writing at the level you're writing. You're a huge problem on Wikipedia because you clearly believe you know what you're talking about and have a lot more time than the people who really do. This is exactly why critics of Wikipedia say that technical articles can't be trusted. There aren't a lot of people with the qualifications to write an article on quantum decoherence, and most of them are too busy (as you might imagine) to catch you. (Unfortunately, I'm only qualified enough to find your mistakes, not rewrite the article.)

If you really knew so much more about physics than you imagine I do, you would have known about (for example) tensor products. Or you would have realised what the the link to Dirac notation implies. I suggest that if you don't know enough to rewrite you that you don't know enought to delete. I was careful not to delete material when I expanded decoherence. I suggest you learn to do likewise. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned on the Quantum Interference page, I agree that I was wrong about the notation. I'd never seen a tensor product written that way, but it should've been obvious from the way you used it so it's my fault. However, I still think much of what you wrote doesn't make sense, and you probably copied from source material you found on the internet that neither one of us really understands. Birge 16:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Any specific nonsensical items I am happy to address.

I'm sorry you believe I've copied the new material (although I don't see what would be wrong if I had - but I didn't). You're entitled to your unsubstantiated beliefs, though. Feel free to google for it if you like! --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you copied verbatim. What I meant was that it appears you've read stuff about this, and are attempting to write your own account of them without really understanding them. I do completely apologize about calling you a crank, though. I was wrong. You clearly are not, and all I can really say is that I think you need to be more careful.

Apologies accepted, as I said, & I am quite impressed that you offered it (as I also said).

Every thing I wrote -- with the exception of the Hilbert space dimensions stuff -- was straight from the Zurek cites I gave in the article. I happen to believe I understand Zurek's work, but only specific criticisms will show whether I'm right.

I believe that most of our differences with regard to the "Lost in Hilbert Space" piece can be resolved if I substitute "phase space" for "Hilbert space", and I will probably make this change shortly. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would agree with that change. Also, I probably shouldn't comment on the Zurek stuff, since I definitely don't understand it yet (haven't read it, even) and it appears that I was incorrect about the seriousness of the discrepancies in the Dirac section, which are just notational. I'll stay out of it until I read more about it. Birge 18:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)