User talk:MichaelCPrice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, MichaelCPrice, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

You did very nice edits on Many-worlds interpretation! Welcome to wikipedia! --DenisDiderot 10:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks DD -- glad you liked it. Thanks for the links. I'll probably confine myself straightforward textural edits for the near future whilst I get the hang of the metatools.--Michael C Price 12:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Many worlds interpretation

Hi. I have been looking at the article on the MWI, and while it is undoubtedly comprehensive, there are a number of quibbles I have with it...but rather than jump in headlong and start uprooting long-standing content (much of which is of good quality), I have left a message on the talk page there, outlining the first of my quibbles. I thought I should point this out to you, since it seems you have a bit of an editing history there and are an afficionado of the theory judging from the blurb on your userpage. Byrgenwulf 15:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just started answering your question on the MWI talk page. See over there shortly. Have you looked at universal wavefunction as well? --Michael C. Price talk 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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][1], since it adheres to the perfect cosmological principle on the largest scale. --Michael C. Price talk 11:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

-- 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.

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Request for Comment

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

[edit] Sarfatti

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Infobox

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Bohm interpretation, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Mirror reflections

Dear Mike, concerning the π 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 eπ / 2 gives eπ, 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 π / 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/User_talk%7EMichaelCPrice_99ab.html"