|WikiProject Physics||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
|This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Threads older than 3 months may be archived by .
Section under "the crux of the matter" is wrongEdit
The section under "the crux of the matter" is wrong. By only measuring the x or z axis you cannot distinguish between a classical system with hidden variables and a quantum system. One has to measure at 45 degrees also. The description is wrong.
Sorry, I meant to put this somewhere else, but I do not know how to delete this.
Observer as VariableEdit
The impact of consciousness is unquestioned, how much more abstract is consciousness greater will its power both in size and complexity?
The modern resolution—that quantum theory describes the system and not individual particles—should be sourced. I remember sourcing it on another article but if anyone else has a source it would be good to prevent the appearance of an "isolated study", when this description is actually widely adopted by physicists. Bright☀ 10:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
From the little I have learnt about the subject I find this "modern" resolution to sound very much like Bohr's original explanation to Einstein in their letters. I also don't find it fully clear how "measurable properties have well-defined meaning only for the ensemble system" differs from "hidden local variables" of the ensemble system. I have more objections to this paragraph, but for now it is sufficient to say that I would really like to find the source of this information, so that I could verify that the editor has understood it correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
A colleague who may well be a better physicist than I has just reverted my extensive edit -- IIRC, some 600 new characters, beyond anything I simply replaced or reworded. What I clearly recall is that my improvement of the clarity of the scope of the first 'graph is objectionable, bcz the colleague apparently thinks the function of the lead 'graph should be to address matters that users who already have an overall grasp of the topic would rather not be slowed down by!
(I'm constrained by a lousy interface for wiki-editing, and haven't yet seen a diff for either the net changes of my several edits over the last several hours, nor for any of my individual saves; it may be a few days before I get to where I can assess the value of my changes to various passages. --- It'd be great if the colleague would critique them in terms of individual sentences instead of claiming e.g. that my whole complex of probably a dozen or two independent minor changes can rightly be reverted without being individually addressed.)
So for now, I'm playing my persona as wise old pre-9-11 veteran who appreciates that discussion, and lack of urgency to race twd a perfect, simple solution is what has built this edifice.
--Jerzy•t 10:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- While this article is far from properly-worded (as the cleanup tag says, it's written like an essay instead of a summary) your wording is... peculiar: quantum physics is a "physics specialty"; the "obvious conjecture" about the initials EPR; "novel model"; and so on. If you are a physicist, please feel free to improve the accuracy and phrasing of the article (using references to reliable sources), but please avoid the personal style and essay style. Bright☀ 12:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Also, there should be a moratorium on adding words to the introduction. Metaquanta (talk) 12:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Disagreement concerning lede revisions by IP editor 129.11.174.xxxEdit
IP editor 129.11.174.xxx and I have some disagreement on proposed revisions to the lede which, in my opinion, do not represent an improvement. I reverted his/her revisions and have copied the disputed edits below. I don't have time now to detail my concerns, but maybe later on today, I will be able to delineate the points that I do not consider satisfactory. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Specific critiques highlighted in color:
- Terrible English: "dichotomy that explanation" does not make sense.
- The substitution of "fled" with "left" understates the circumstances of his departure.
- Original research, so far as I can tell. Need to back up with reliable sources.
- Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 10:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Proposed lede revisions by IP editor 129.11.174.xxxEdit
The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (EPR paradox) is a thought experiment in Physics which yields a dichotomy that explanation of physical reality according to Quantum Mechanics is Incomplete.  In the article Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?, Albert Einstein and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR) attempted to mathematically show that the wave function does not contain a complete information about physical reality; hence the Copenhagen interpretation was deemed unsatisfactory. Resolutions of the paradox have important implications for the interpretation of quantum as well as classical physics, as for the latter case, one could question if it was at all possible, contrary to intuition and common sense, to have a quantum picture without having a classical one at first.
Need help hereEdit
Up to now, I had given 129.11.xxx.xxx the benefit of the doubt and tried to treat him as a misguided good faith editor.
With the edit summary to his latest edit, with his intentional misspelling of Einstein's name, it is clear that we are dealing with a vandal. I had not put warnings on the talk pages of the previous versions of his IP address, because of my previous misapprehension of him as being simply misguided. What is the procedure here? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I retroactively applied vandalism 1 and vandalism 2 templates to a couple of this user's IP talk pages, with the explanation that I did not previously understand that these edits were vandalism rather than good faith, and have applied a third level warning to his current talk page. I don't see anything in Wikipedia policy pages regarding this particular situation, and am just doing the best that I can figure. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
COMMENT FOR THE EDITORSEdit
This Article is unsatisfactory from a history of science perspective.
(1) Whatever its contents, its title should not monopolize E-P-R, but should be changed to "Further Study/Discussion/Investigation of E-P-R" [or "Elaboration on E-P-R"]. A different Article should limit itself to the original E-P-R and exclude the John Bell presentation from it altogether. Otherwise this Article sounds like an Informercial for John Bell. Would you substitute the words of Aristotle in the stead of those of Plato ? When Plato quoted Socrates, he was careful to preserve the distinction between who said what and who now says what.
(2) Scientific experiment validates, but cannot sew the fabric of theory. Where distinct theories are validated by experiment, their respective "sewing patterns" can be of interest in themselves, even if they can later be shown to be equivalent to one another. Sometimes more than one are needed, such as the wave(propagation)-particle(emission-absorption) duality.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. COMMENT FOR THE EDITORS ONLY.