User talk:Caroline Thompson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful


Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 22:41, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:No original research

You may want to know that we have a policy of no original research - everything must have been published, preferably by a peer-reviewed journal. Secretlondon 22:45, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to just present lesser-known facts objectively. The editors of Phys. Rev. Lett. and Phys. Rev. A consider my material to be "well known". Much of it is published in peer-reviewed journals -- see my bibliography -- but these are not widely available. I am therefore linking mainly to the versions at arXiv.org. Caroline Thompson 11:01, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As long as they're published somewhere there is no problem, but the article should cite the sources for the material, and maintain a neutral tone. Dori | Talk 15:34, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
I'll add full journal refs to external references but mainly link to the quant-ph archive or other public sources. Caroline Thompson 08:11, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:51, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)) Errm, Caroline, are you not being a teensy bit deceptive here? Quoting from your bibliography page:

In 1964, John Bell proved that local realistic theories led to an upper bound on correlations between distant events (Bell's inequality) and that quantum mechanics had predictions that violated that inequality. Ten years later, experimenters started to test in the laboratory the violation of Bell's inequality (or similar predictions of local realism). No experiment is perfect, and various authors invented "loopholes" such that the experiments were still compatible with local realism. Of course nobody proposed a local realistic theory that would reproduce quantitative predictions of quantum theory (energy levels, transition rates, etc.).
This loophole hunting has no interest whatsoever in physics. It tells us nothing on the properties of nature. It makes no prediction that can be tested in new experiments. Therefore I recommend not to publish such papers in Physical Review A. Perhaps they could be suitable for a journal on the philosophy of science.

This puts a somewhat different slant on the opinions of the editors of PRL. Incidentally, the text above (if it is indeed an official editorial opinion) might well be of interest on the page. Can you clarify its source? (I found: http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/Papers/Crasemann-CHT%20correspondence%202004.htm so I guess that is the source. Probably official enough).

Perhaps you should also read my comments in Appendix C of Setting the Record Straight on Quantum Entanglement. To me, what the policy statement amounts to is evidence that the editors and referees do not fully understand the detection loophole, let alone any others. (Looking at the page on Bell's theorem it is not hard to see why!)
There simply does not seem to be any system at present for correcting mistakes. It was decided after Aspect's experiments that QM was right. Aspect had decided that the CHSH inequality was OK because it was reasonable to assume fair sampling and also because he thought he had proved that the bias from this source was, in his experiments, too small to matter. He had also, incidentally, decided that it was OK to subtract accidentals. Many people would now, if pushed, agree that fair sampling cannot be assumed in any optical experiment and that accidentals cannot legitimately be subtracted, yet numerous experiments using tests involving these are currently quoted as supporting quantum entanglement. If you look at the quantum mechanics page you will find that the experimental support for entanglement is one of the main arguments for quantum theory (the link to Bell Test Loopholes there is my recent addition).
Yes, I'm on the opposite side of the fence from the editors of PRL and PRA, but what can I do? I've studied the raw facts while, as far as I can tell, they have relied on opinion. Caroline Thompson 22:44, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Aspect

When you add an entry to a disambiguation page, please provide a link to to article you're referring to. Also, there's no need to explain why you're adding an entry in the article itself—that's what the Edit Summary is for. Anyone who wants to know what links point to the page itself can use what links here. — Gwalla | Talk 22:35, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about that. There is not yet any page on Alain Aspect. If anyone creates such a page I suppose they would not call it just "Aspect" anyway. I know: I'll edit the page I'd come from instead (to link to Alain_Aspect) and delete the disambiguation entry. Caroline Thompson 11:28, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry about linking to nonexistent articles. It may prompt somebody to write the article. Don't delete the diambig entry either—it may help people who are searching and don't know his first name (lots of citations only use the last name). — Gwalla | Talk 18:05, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Relative_motion_theory

Caroline -

I have listed Talk:Relative_motion_theory on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Hopefully some other members will come by and head off the edit problems you're experiencing. Ocon | Talk 17:19, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Right now I'm not involved in this -- my own edits seem to have stayed there. The page (and others by the same user) is down for possible deletion so that may finally solve everything. Caroline Thompson 18:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Edit attribution

Hi, Caroline. Edits from 81.103.216.91 have now been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 04:19, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Same for 81.103.146.124. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 08:41, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
And the same for your other edit to Loopholes in optical Bell test experiments - sorry about the delay! — Kate Turner | Talk 04:15, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

[edit] Self-promotion

It is poor form to link to one's own papers on the Wikipedia. If your ideas are sufficiently noteworthy to be noted by an encyclopedia article, it will surely go up without your help. Otherwise, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (point 18 of section 2) and Wikipedia:No original research. -- CYD

CYD, see your talk page. Two out of the three main papers I reference are pubished in refereed journals, so don't count as original research. The fact that they are mine cannot be helped. There are no others that cover the subjects. I'm therefore reverting. Caroline Thompson 08:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

what makes you think that refereed journals don't publish original research? what on earth do you think refereed journals publish? well-known textbook results? -Lethe | Talk
The point is that once research has been accepted and published in a refereed journal it ceases to be "original" in the sense of being just personal, unchecked work. It has become public knowledge. In the case in point (my Chaotic Ball work) I don't think you will find any article that critises it, and the few (regrettably very few!) that cite it do so positively. Caroline Thompson 10:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Being cited positively a few times or being published in a refereed journal does not change work from being original research. -Lethe | Talk
If no "original research" were to be allowed even after publication there would never be any new scientific information in wikipedia that was written by the people who really understood it! What would have happened to the great editions such as the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica had J J Thomson not been allowed to talk about X-rays? How about one 50 or so years earlier in which Maxwell presented his ideas on electromagnetism? Anyway, it't not at if I'm claiming originality -- almost all my ideas are included in Clauser and Shimony's 1978 report. All I'm claiming is that my papers are more accessible to the ordinary reader. Caroline Thompson 10:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For what its worth, my interpretation of 'No original research' is that the first site of publication cannot be wikipedia (That is, I agree with Caroline in this matter of the priniciple of reasearch published elseware is considered original.). I do think the self promotion possiblility is debatable however. Jrincayc 04:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Who are we kidding here? Wikipedia has become Caroline's personal platform for ideas that she cannot distribute elsewhere. And for an essentially unpublished author to reference their own works under the guise of "it's the best availble" is the height of arrogance. Over at PhysicsForums.com, she is referencing "her" WP articles as support for her unorthodox positions (she denies the existence of photons, for example). She has made a mess of the Bell's Theorem and related pages, requiring substantial effort to remove her biased POV.--DrChinese 21:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I never got around to sending you that list of people who think my Chaotic Ball model the best available? The first "established expert" to say this was John Rarity (he's conducted a few Bell test experiments). The most recent notable example is Abner Shimony, of CHSH and Clauser and Shimony 1978 report fame.
Is it you, incidentally, who have blocked my access now to Physics Forums? As for my having "made a mess" of the Bell's theorem and related pages, history will eventually show that it is you and CSTAR who have done this! OK, so wikipedia is not interested in the truth. All I can say is that I am! Caroline Thompson 23:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bell's

The rules of wiki are that until someone else thinks it important to cite your work, it must remain uncited. Dr. Thompson, many of the people you are arguing with are also the authors of papers or other public material, and are under the same restrictions. There isn't any compromise on this position, you are violating the what you agreed to hold to in editing here. Wikipedia can only record what has, for better or for worse, been vetted by the public process. This means that on many subjects it will contain material which will later be overturned, or does not quite stay current with the field, because it takes time for dissemination to occur. I would like to ask that you please respect your fellow contributors - who face this same dilemma in other articles themselves - and withdraw references to your own work until such time as it has gained sufficient support. Stirling Newberry 00:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But you do make exceptions! Look for instance at Afshar's page, devoted entirely to his own work which has, as far as I know, not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. [It may have been by now, but there was no ref to such publication last time I looked.] Anyway, Dr Chinese has done a pretty thorough job of expunging my work from the record in most pages. There is just the one exception: the Bell test loopholes page. I hope you recognise (as Dr Chinese does) that my contribution in this area is valuable. There is clearly no pretence that the page represents the accepted point of view: it represents useful facts that can be used by the opposition. These facts are available elsewhere if you look hard, but my papers present them in a form intended for the scientifically-trained (but not necessarily expert in quantum mechanics) public.
Incidentally, my most important paper (from the point of view of wikipedia) is my Chaotic Ball one, and this has been cited by a person prominent in the field, namely Abner Shimony, one of the team responsible for the CHSH Bell inequality. The citation is in an encyclopaedia article for Stanford University. Caroline Thompson 18:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Caroline, you again twist the facts. I do not support what you are doing in Wikipedia. You have abused the system and wasted the time of many. That does not mean that everything you do is automatically wrong. Just because I don't remove something, it should not be considered an endorsement. And Shimony mentioned your model, but I would not call that a citation by any means. He said "these models are ad hoc and lack physical plausibility..." and I think you flatter yourself with the mention. You clearly don't like the rules here, which are not the same as your personal web page.--DrChinese 21:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's not just that I don't like the rules. I don't like the fact that someone who, as far as I can tell, has less knowledge of the subject than me is being given more respect. CSTAR's additions to the Bell's theorem page are non-standard and his own POV just as much as mine are, yet, because they are couched in the language of QM and are suitably obfuscated, they are acceptable to wikipedia! What is the aim of an encyclopaedia? To dumbfound its readers? Bell's theorem is about common sense, not this.
Re Shimony, he was evidently being cautious, but a citation is, nevertheless, a citation. Caroline Thompson 22:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bell test loopholes and Bell inequalities

I've put your articles Bell test loopholes and Bell inequalities on Votes for deletion: [1], [2]. Observing this for some time, I came to the conclusion that your mission and the Wikipedia's misson are incompatible. Your ideas may be considered worthwhile to discuss, but Wikipedia struggles to be an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. --Pjacobi 11:31, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

And there was me thinking an encyclopedia was a collection of facts! Is anyone disputing that my contributions are facts? They are all based on published material, ranging from Bell's own papers through Pearle's of 1970 to the important modifications by Clauser et al and on to the recent actual experiments. Though in the Bell test loopholes page I continue to reference my own work, this is only (as I have explained) because it makes already-published facts more accessible to the public. Caroline Thompson 18:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It would help your case a lot if you pointed to other people's readable accounts of the same, which do exist! &mdash: Miguel 14:33, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
The problem is that most "readable" accounts do not quite fit the bill. The only paper I can really rely on is Pearle's original 1970 one. I could, I suppose, quote Gisin and Gisin:
Gisin, N and B Gisin, “A local hidden variable model of quantum correlation exploiting the detection loophole”, Physics Letters A 260, 323-327 (1999), http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9905018
As they say:
"[The] renormalisation [used in the CHSH test], although natural in the frame of quantum mechanics, is questionable ... in order to definitively prove all lhv models wrong, the experimental data should violate an inequality involving no 'renormalisation', ideally involving only count rates."
and:
"The model presented ... underlines how simple and natural a local model can be while reproducing exactly the quantum correlation function thanks to this loophole."
I'll do this (and hope a certain person does not immediately revert). It's a pity, though, that they do not quote any of Marshal et al's work. They've been saying the same thing for years. Caroline Thompson 18:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You ask: "Is anyone disputing that my contributions are facts?" The answer is a big YES! And the place to debate them is NOT WIKIPEDIA for the ten zillionth time. Please do not waste more of our time by posting on areas you already know there is consensus against you. Take your debate to academic arenas instead.--DrChinese 15:40, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell you are wrong, in that nobody (yourself included!) is actually disputing what I say either re the various different Bell inequalities or re the Bell test loopholes. I'm afraid your remark has not helped in our current dilemma: what to do about the disputed pages. Are you denying that somewhere, preferably within the Bell's theorem page, there should be statements of the principle inequalities along with selected derivations and indications of where (if at all) each has been applied? What real reason are you giving why Bell test loopholes should not have a page of its own, for convenience of reference by other pages? I have not heard you dispute the existence of any of the loopholes I list. In short, I think maybe you are not being consistent and might find, on further consideration, that you do not actually reject any of my facts. Caroline Thompson 18:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I should also announce the following: Wikipedia has recently implemented the "NOFOLLOW" tag on external references. This means that self-references are ignored by Google and other search engines and will not serve to enhance the Google ranking of the author.--DrChinese 15:40, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You wrote on my user space:

I fear you may be precisely the wrong person to ask for help (I suspect that you have studied too much quantum theory!) but I shall ask anyway.

I hope you realize this comes close to disqualifying your plea for help from serious consideration. You need people who have studied a lot of quantum theory, the more the better! The implication of your sentence is that only people who have not studied lots of quantum theory are likely to agree with you.

I don't think so. The point is that to understand Bell's theorem it is sufficient to understand local realist models. Bell showed that these were limited by his inequality. The fact that QM violates the limit means that, to a local realist, QM is evidently wrong. Unless experiment convincingly shows a violation, there is no compulsion for local realists to become proficient in QM. The Bell's theorem pages should therefore be readable to such people. However, you are right in that it would be absurd to discuss the theorem if one were totally ignorant of the subject. Caroline Thompson 18:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Irrespective of my personal opinion about hidden variables, I would have to say that I agree experimental tests of the Bell inequalities need not be completely water-tight. On the other hand, people are using more and more contrived loopholes which amount to a "nature's conspiracy", in the spirit of the one preventing the velocity of the aether from being measures#d, to which Lorentz said "a conspiracy by nature to prevent measurement amoynts to a law of nature".

There are very many respectable physicist working on the theoretical side of ruling out local variables (for instance, Asher Peres who qorks closely with a bunch of people on your list of notables who like your theory) ...

[See my remarks on Peres in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CSTAR. I've had some correspondence with him in 1999.]

... and Bell's inequalities on local hidden variables are not the only front. There's the much more shocking Kochen-Specker theorem ruling out non-contextual hidden variables. Adan Cabello and Guillermo García Alcaine discovered a few years ago a version of the K-S theorem using only 4 yes/no propositions in a 3-spin system, which might be actually experimentally testable. Then. of course, the loophole chasers will claim that the experiment is still inconclusive.

Anyway, if you read my user page you will see that I prominently state that , as a rule, I stay away from controversial topics. This is partly why I work more on mathematics than physics articles: I find that the average joe does not have the nerve to pontificate on mathematics, but they do on physics.

By the way, as far as the vote for deletion goes, you can always save your version of the pages under your user space so good material from it can be salvaged. Miguel 14:29, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, and I've saved the pages on my computer anyway, but my problem is that at present all my edits are being reverted. And I don't understand why we can't have a Bell inequalities page that lists and discusses the various inequalities, with links to pages giving the derivations. Dr Chinese objected that the page added nothing useful, but he is under the impression that all the inequalities are equivalent. This may indeed be the case if QM is correct, but is certainly false under local realism. Caroline Thompson 18:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Single-channel Bell test.jpg listed for deletion

An image that you uploaded, Single-channel Bell test.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion because it lacks source and license information, and it is not used in any articles. Please go there to voice your opinion (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Redirection of Bell inequalities to Bell's theorem

(I will CC this to the article talk page)

Hi Caroline. If the notation used in Bell's theorem is inconsistent with the notation used in other inequality articles, then the best thing to do is to change the notation on Bell's theorem to match the notation used in the other articles. As for merging the information from the deleted article into the redirected article, the VfD consensus is to redirect the article without merging its contents, so that's what I did. Cheers --Deathphoenix 19:35, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bell's theorem and various other pages will need quite a lot of editing to make them make sense (with links to specific inequality pages) and to standardise notation. I fear that if I undertake the task I shall be suspected of trying to impose my POV and my edits will be reverted. The logical candidates for the job are therefore yourself or CSTAR. Leaving things as they are is not reasonable option -- it will not be good for wikipedia's reputation.

[I'll copy the above to the Bell's theorem talk page.] Caroline Thompson 10:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: I have not yet been able to view the final revised versions of Bell's theorem or Bell test experiments, but perhaps they are now basically OK. Bell's theorem stands on its own as regards notation but I am no longer really concerned with this page. Bell test experiments probably contains quite a lot of duplication -- I'll try and sort it out when I can view it. Isn't it now rather long, though? Wouldn't it be better to split off a couple of sections? Caroline Thompson 10:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do not edit other people's user page

You should have added your enquiry about Bell's inequalities to my talk page, not my user page. I consider it a breach of etiquette to edit someone else's user page. I'll respond to your request soon ;-) Miguel 14:12, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Sorry! I misunderstood the instructions. Please delete my stuff or copy to the correct place. Caroline Thompson 18:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion about Bell's theorem

Dear Caroline thompson I include here a part of a discussion with CSTAR in which I criticize the generaliy of the derivation presented on the Bell's theorem page (Bell's test page for more details)

...Dear CSTAR Your proof is non-contextual in the sense that it supposes that the system of two particles has value of a , a' (for A) and b, b'(for B) at each test (1,2,...N,...). This is not the most general hypothesis . In a general theory the system is characterized at each test by a parameter lambda. This parameter (initial condition ) can be completely different of the value a,a',b,b' observed later and we have not to suppose that these observables exist prior to the measurment. In the language of probabilities you can in your model define a probability P(a,a',b,b') for the four observables . Then you can define P(a,b) for example by

P(a,b) = ∑ P(a,b,a',b')
a',b'

which is identical to

P(a,b) = ∑ δα,aδβ,bP(α,β,a',b')
α,β,a',b'

the Kronecker symbol are introduced in order to define the probabilities

PA(a | α,β,a',b') = δα,a

for the particle A and similarly for B. These kind of notation do the link between the demonstration proposed by you and Peres in one side and the original derivation of Bell and other. indeed in their notation they have

P(a,b)=\int P_{A}(a|\lambda)P_{B}(b|\lambda)dP(\lambda)

In the case of a deterministic model we can put

PA(a | λ) = δA(λ),a

You can see that your model corresponds to a deterministic theory with :

λ = [a,a',b,b'].

This is obviously a kind of non contextual model since you suppose that the particle A is characterized by one value a' even if you only observed the quantity a associated with another orientation of the rotator. The same is true for B and the values b ,b'. --Drezet

[edit] Copyright

Hi, you are the uploader of this image? Are you the copyright holder of this image? Could I please use it on The Wikinerds Community websites under another licence, in addition to GFDL? i.e. can you dual-license this image? The licence I prefer is CC-by-SA-2. Thanks. NSK 11:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:StraightLines.PNG has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:StraightLines.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Image:StraightLines.png has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:StraightLines.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
I've re-inserted the part of Local hidden variable theory where Image:StraightLines.png was needed. The other diagram seems to be redundant. Caroline Thompson 09:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Can you please tag the image (See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags) --Thanks, Nv8200p (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I've added the tag {{pd-self}} and removed the warnings. Hope this is right. Caroline Thompson 08:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Well, maybe not the death. Maybe just a mild stomach complaint or something.

I believe that Bell's inequalities can be violated but I can see that experimental evidence on strongly suggests this, it does not conclusively prove it. The fact that there is a possibility that the inequalites may not be violated should be made known.

Last academic year I did a project on entanglement. Part of this was about the Bell's inequalities and I found your information on the loopholes very helpful. I see since then much of it has been cut out and so I've placed the info about them from my project back into the article. I even referenced you, which should solve your self-promotion problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Mattic (talk • contribs) at 12:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, whoever you are! However, saying this makes it seem as if what you have done is for my personal benefit. The fact is that you have simply taken account of some of the lesser-known details of the experiments that really ought to be known by all. We all ought to have open minds, since there is no other real evidence for quantum weirdness and, if you look for it, you can find alternative explanations for an awful lot, if not the whole, of QM. Caroline Thompson 19:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I decided that everything that was in my project that wasn't on the 'pedia should be put in. That included the loopholes that were in but got edited out. I didn't do it for your personal benefit, I did it to add knowledge to wikipedia. When I saw that you'd made an edit on Bell test experiments I decided to look at your pages and thought I'd drop you a line. As for who I am, I forgot to sign my name didn't I? Matthew Mattic 09:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sad news

The following message was sent by her family. Harald88 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear All,

It is with deep regret that we write to inform you that Caroline Thompson passed away on Wednesday 8th February 2006. She had bravely fought cancer for several years, until she finally succumbed. Despite her illness she continued to work tirelessly for what she believed in. We still hope to get her final paper "The Chaotic Ball" published posthumously and we will keep her website open for others to read.

[edit] Condolences

I am shocked to hear of Caroline's death. To her family, I express my deepest condolences. Tan Ding Xiang03:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's sad to lose such great editors, and inspiring people to such an illness. I, too express my sympathies. May God bless her soul. Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't know Caroline, or even bump into her on Wikipedia, but I do offer my condolences to the family. A sad day indeed. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I messaged Caroline briefly regarding the VfD on Bell's inequalities almost a year ago (see above), but I know of her efforts on the Bell's theorem and related pages. Her edits will live on forever on these pages. --Deathphoenix ʕ 05:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Peace

--CSTAR 04:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] With peace and tranquility...

From HC.
From HC.

[edit] Goodbye Caroline Thompson

Heard about your passing in the Signpost.

Goodbye. You made good contributions to our free encyclopaedia.

--EuropracBHIT 07:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] May you rest in peace

Akamad 11:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goodbye Caroline Thompson

Goodbye Caroline Thompson. May you rest in peace. JIP | Talk 11:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rest in Peace, Caroline!

--TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 14:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farewell

"The undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveler returns..."

[edit] Peace

Read the signpost. May you rest in peace and tranquility.--Dakota ~ ° 08:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Make small memorial on user page?

Caroline did some great work here and I hope she will rest in peace. Would anyone object if we added a small memorial note to the top of her user page (maybe just past the info from signpost there so others who visit the page know she passed on)? --Alabamaboy 14:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • It's up already I think. May her rest in peace. - Mailer Diablo 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I have protected her user page, just in case some nitwit decides to vandalise it. DS 19:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rest in Peace

Rest in peace on the Lord's arms, Caroline. Wikipedia misses your pshysical presence. User:AntonioMartin. 11:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rest In Peace

Rest in Peace Caroline. Your contributions to Physics and Science here and in the world at large will be sorely missed. A fellow physics student.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

While it is unfortunate that she passed away, and I do not wish to speak ill of the dead, I would advise that you look into the nature of a user's contributions before making such a comment. In this case, you might want to look at her website. --Philosophus T 19:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An immortal star

Wikipedians NEVER DIE...they just get reverted. Your edits will be written over, but your importance of your contribution shall never diminish. Caroline, Thank you for making Wikipedia a part of your life. May God bless you and your family. Rama's Arrow 01:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedians NEVER DIE...they just get reverted. Your edits will be written over, but your importance of your contribution shall never diminish. Caroline, Thank you for making Wikipedia a part of your life. May God bless you and your family. Rama's Arrow 01:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Its a sad thing we never bumped into each other, she died 1 month before I started editing Wikipedia. Maybe we'll bump into each other in the next life. May you float with the angels. --66.218.11.61

[edit] Rest in Peace....

We never met on Wikipedia. Your sad departure from the face of the most beautiful Earth will never be forgotten by the Wikipedia community. As Archimedes said,

“ Μη μου τους κύκλους τάραττε ”

Don't touch my Cirlces!

Rest forever in peace and may you be remembered for as long as the name Wikipedia shall evoke a memory and for even longer,

“ Plaudite, amici, comedia finita est ”

Beethoven's last, Applaud friends, the comedy is over.


Booksworm 20:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rest in peace

MAy you rest in peace. 203.170.226.253 10:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rest in peace

I joined a month after your passing, it is a shame I never got to bump into you. Hopefully I will bump into you in the next life, or the life after that, etc. :( --Alien joe 21:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rest In Peace

I never knew you on Wikipedia, but I was looking at the list of deceased Wikipeadians. Rest In Peace my condolances go out to the family. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) 21:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RIP

Rest in peace.--Royalmate1 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for helping

Caroline Thompson, your work on hidden variable theory may have profound implications on not only the theoretical, but also the practical implications of a new unified theory, energy and water-wise. May you be remembered as such in all your ground-breaking work, wich i'm sure time will not fail to recognise it. I only feel sorry that you would not be able to see that day, but i'm sure its process will be hastened by your contributions to the scientific world in general and wikipedia in specific. In Memoriam, Caroline Thompson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.80.125 (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)