Talk:List of unsolved problems in physics/Archive 3

News edits
per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, normally you should be the one attempting to form consensus here for your additions instead of reinstating them when they are reverted. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 13:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The one who has objections should start a new thread and list and explain in details his objections. I do not see any reason to revert these changes, so I have no grounds to start a new thread, because I have nothing to say - all is fine from my point of view. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:BRD. You made a bold edit, which was reverted. At that point you should have started a discussion, as opposed to re-reverting. - DVdm (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your demands are unreasonable. I have nothing to say, because all is fine from my point of view, so how can I start a discussion? The users who reverted my edits violated Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary rule. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are not my demands. These are Wikipedia's demands. Policy. If you find Wikipedia policy unreasonable, then you are free to go elsewhere. Or to try to change the policies at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring.
 * And if you have really "nothing to say", then indeed, perhaps you better go elsewhere. - DVdm (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism or other disruptive edits. In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement. This is often true of small edits. So clearly my edits do not qualify for reversion. See Unacceptable reversions. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to have this conversion in two places. See your talk..
 * If you have something relevant regarding the content, you can write it here, where we discuss the article itself. Discussions about behaviour are best confined to the user talk page. - DVdm (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)
 * Article content is determined through WP:CONSENSUS. Usually, the easiest way to get consensus is to provide reliable sources. If you can provide sources clearly stating that the items under discussion are considered unsolved problems in physics, there should be no problem. BTW, maybe the items should be discussed separately, as there are objections for some of them that they are redundant. Knowing which objections apply to which item would certainly be helpful. Paradoctor (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of reliable sources in the relevant Wikipedia articles, there is no need to repeat them here, because there are already internal links going to those wikipedia articles with sources. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "there is no need to repeat them here" I'm afraid that is not correct. WP:PROVEIT states "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (my emphasis). Paradoctor (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is true for an "ordinary" wikipedia article, but this article is different because its purpose is only to list unsolved problems in physics, its purpose is not to explain why they are unsolved, because that explanation is in the relevant wikipedia articles to which an internal link is posted. Besides there is plenty of entires in this wikipedia article without any sources apart from the internal link to wikipedia articles, so why don't you remove those entires from the article?Musashi miyamoto (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Same source as above: "All content must be verifiable." I am not aware of any exception to this rule.
 * "plenty of entires in this wikipedia article without any sources" If you check the article's edit history, you'll find that I did remove unsourced entries on three occasions. Generally speaking, I make an effort to find sources for entries before I delete them. Normally, that's as painless as copying the appropriate ref(s) from the linked article. But everyone has the right to WP:CHALLENGE unsourced content by removing it, and stating that the reason for the removal is lack of sourcing, nothing wrong per se with that. Beware of WP:POINTy behavior though, even if it can be tempting. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll add sources, even though what your're doing is highly bureaucratic, because you see that there is no need for them here, yet just because of the rules you want them, ignoring that the consensus could disregard the rule when it is not necessary to implement. Also still they had no right to delete my entries, beause their reverts were Unacceptable reversions. They should have gone to talk page instead.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll add sources, even though what your're doing is highly bureaucratic, because you see that there is no need for them here, yet just because of the rules you want them, ignoring that the consensus could disregard the rule when it is not necessary to implement. Also still they had no right to delete my entries, beause their reverts were Unacceptable reversions. They should have gone to talk page instead.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "I'll add sources." 👌
 * "highly bureaucratic" ... "had no right" WP:ROWN is an WP:ESSAY, not a policy or guideline, and should be taken with a grain of salt. If my experience counts for anything, I had to learn to keep in mind that not everything here will work the way it should, at least in my opinion. These days, I try to make sure I can always cite the appropriate piece of community consensus documented in the policies and guidelines, whenever there is the slightest possibility that an edit could be objected to. Makes for a better experience, at least for me. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So you see if they did not want to go to the talk page, they could have added the sources themselves, we all would have saved a lot of time then, but deleting good entries in this article was not the right option. Deleting good entries is disrespectful, you discourage people to edit wikipedia that way, because no-one likes that his/her good voluntary work is destroyed without a good reason or against the rules. I personally avoid editing wikipedia just because of that (i.e. although there is a number of reasonable people here, there is also plenty of sadistic perverts who gain satisfaction by destroying other people work in the name of some abstract or not important rules, and often against the rules, instead of making correction themselves). However, I was so shocked that this fundamental phenomena are not listed here that I decided to make an edit, and I am begining to regret that now.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that. Paradoctor (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See wp:CIRCULAR. - DVdm (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the entries in the article are without any sources apart from the internal link to the Wikipedia article, just like mine, so why you do not remove those entries, but only mine?Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - DVdm (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This does not answer my question: Why didn't you remove those entries, but only mine?Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, see wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And these items are there and survived by apparent wp:CONSENSUS. For all new challenged content, you have the wp:BURDEN. - DVdm (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you object, if I removed those entries, which have no sources apart from the internal link to another wikipedia article? Because they clearly violate the rules, which you point out, so they should be removed now.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I and probably others would object, for the reason given. There is one rule in Wikipedia, perhaps the most important one, that trumps all other rules: wp:CONSENSUS. You don't have it to add your new content, and you don't have it to remove long standing established content. And per the policy, as outlined in wp:NOCONSENSUS, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.". If you insist on making a change without establishing new consensus on the article talk page, then you can (and must) go to wp:dispute resolution. - DVdm (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on you, because you claim that consensus has been reached to leave many entries without sources, but you have not proved that it is indeed the case, therefore those entries should be deleted, unless you prove that indeed consensus has been reached to leave them unsourced.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Re-read wp:BURDEN, again, one more time. And, regarding removing them, have a look at wp:POINT. And finally, regarding your failure to understand what is explained to you here, have a look at wp:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. - DVdm (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Show me please where it says that I have to prove anything when deleting unsourced entries.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See above. - DVdm (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no such rule and you know it.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think DVDm means you should not go now and delete all entries without sources just because you are angry. That's what WP:POINT is about. If you deleted entries whose linked articles do not contain suitable refs, and an adequate effort (like checking on Google Scholar) came up dry, I don't think DVDm would object to such deletions. Paradoctor (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not want to delete them, because I am angry, but because I believe that all entries in this article should be equal against the rules, and if DVDm thinks that the unsourced entries are here by consensus against other rules, then the burden of proof is on him to show that this is in fact true what he says, because he claims that, not me.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You reverted a 3rd time now, adding so-called sources. The sources do not say that these are unexplained problems in physics, so they are unsourced. But also note that lack of sources was not even part of the original reverts. Re-read the edit summaries. They say: "Absolutely no explanation for these additions. Questions posed already appear in some of this text already". Next step will be a report at the wp:ANEW notice board. - DVdm (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As promised, after 4th revert, reported. - DVdm (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Whoa DVDm, slow down a bit, please. You may be going a somewhat light on WP:AGF here.
 * "do not say that these are unexplained problems in physics" In the case of inerta and gravity, they do.
 * inertia: "The property of inertia has never been fully explained."
 * gravity: "We asked several scientists from various fields what they thought were the greatest mysteries today"
 * "so they are unsourced" I'm sorry, but that is plain wrong. When an edit cites sources, it is sourced. The sources might be inadequate, but that is another issue.
 * "no explanation" Was provided here in the meantime.
 * "already appear in some of this text" Then please be specific. Where? Right now, it looks like you're throwing the book at an inexperienced editor. Paradoctor (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, standing corrected here on the sourcing matter. My apologies. I'll leave the other matters to the other contributors here, after a cooling-off period . This is mainly about consensus and burden. - DVdm (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, by the way, this could be handy later on: regarding the reliability of some of the sources, see 's comment . - DVdm (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the reverts of my editions should be reverted now, because they were done in violations of wikipedia rules, as stated above (reverters clearly violated the "Revert only when necessary", because their reverts are unacceptable as per the "unacceptable reverts" rules), so my edits should remain in the wikipedia article until consensus is reached here.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I vote Delete. The edits by Musashi miyamoto are unnecessary and generally poor. "Why does gravity exist" and whatnot are not problems in physics.  -Jord gette  [talk]  18:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a joke it is a poor one.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Jordgette merely overlooked the part of the discussion where the matter was resolved. Paradoctor (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that wave-particle duality and the delayed choice quantum eraser are generally considered "unsolved problems" in physics.


 * They are unsolved problems in physics, because we do not know why does extracting "which path" information after a particle passes through the slits can seem to retroactively alter its previous behavior at the slits, i.e. why do measurements made on photons in the present alter events occurring in the past? If you think otherwise please provide with evidence and also tell me when and who was awarded the Nobel prize for answering these questions (because explanations of such funadamental phenomena would certainly be awarded with that prize). I already provided citation showing that it is still unsolved problem. You can easily find more yourself, if you wish.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

They are counterintuitive, but they are consequences of quantum physics. You can always ask, "Why is quantum mechanics the right theory, instead of some other one?"


 * No, that is not the question. Quantum theory does not answer these questions. There is no theory answering these questions and that is the problem. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

But that's not what the additions to the article claimed. The "Why inertia?" paragraph gave undue weight to a paper that, while technically peer-reviewed,


 * EPL is a good peer-reviewed journal.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

attracted no attention from anyone but the original writer and his co-author.


 * This proves my point. The paper clearly states: "The property known as inertia has never been adequately explained, and has been rather a neglected part of physic". The author of that paper tried to figure out what is inertia by applying his hypothesis of quantised inertia - it is a new hypothesis, not confirmed yet by experiments, so that means that we still do not know if his hypothesis is true, therefore we still do not know what is the property of the matter called inertia. If you think otherwise please provide me with evidence that we know what inertia is, and who and when received the Nobel prize for this discovery (because certainly discovery of such fundamental nature would be awarded with that prize).Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Why gravity?" bullet point is basically redundant with material elsewhere on the page


 * Not true. Other material on that page only ask questions in relation to various hypotheses in relation to gravity, but that in not the same as the question about the gravity itself as a phenomenon.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

, and is phrased in an iffy way ("the mechanism of gravity formation" frankly sounds like the e-mails that strangers send to my departmental address).


 * You are welcome to rephrase it.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with XOReaster. --Steve (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Also agree --MaoGo (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please elaborateMusashi miyamoto (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delayed choice quantum eraser is not an unsolved mystery but rather a successful prediction of conventional quantum mechanics. Here is the famous original paper on the topic; key quote "To explain the experimental results, a standard quantum mechanical calculation is presented in the following..." Nobody will win any Nobel prizes for explaining this, because the Nobel prizes for how to do "standard quantum mechanics calculations" were already given out almost 100 years ago.
 * So there is no Nobel Prize waiting for the solution to explaining the delayed choice quantum eraser; the phenomenon was explained at approximately the same moment that it was conceived, and well before it was observed. I wish there was a prize for good pedagogy regarding the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, which correct popular misconceptions about it rather than spreading them, and if there were such a prize I would personally nominate this little arxiv paper.
 * The standard for whether a claim is sourced or fringe is not whether it is published in a "good peer-reviewed journal" but whether it has attracted mainstream acceptance as indicated by secondary and tertiary sources. For example, every mainstream college physics textbook on earth mentions inertia. How many say that it is fundamentally mysterious? None, as far as I've seen, and I've read dozens of them. A paper, even a paper in a perfectly respectable peer-reviewed journal like EPL, is a primary source because it is the authors describing their own analysis. See WP:PRIMARY. Or if you don't trust policy pages, take it from me, I have been editing wikipedia physics articles for more than 10 years and can vouch that it has always been the widely-accepted community standard for physics articles that papers with few citations or endorsements by third parties are not generally relied upon even if they're in "good peer-reviewed journals". --Steve (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Steve here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Steve here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Time in general relativity
Problem of time: How can time be reconciled with general relativity? this statement seems a little bit vague, I propose to change it into Problem of time: How can the concept of time in quantum mechanics be reconciled with general relativity?. I could make this edition right away but I am avoiding the edit wars. --MaoGo (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have expanded the description of the problem to explain that the "problem" lies in the different concepts/roles of time in general relativity and in quantum mechanics. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is better now. Thanks --MaoGo (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverting unsupported and improperly cited material
All this has happened since my last revert of your edits, so this is a somewhat delayed response.


 * When you made this revision, you said "Do not remove before reaching consensus to remove. You still gave no reasonable reasons to remove. What you said is not true."
 * First. 'Consensus' and 'Seeking Consensus' are two different things. Your series of 7 edits made just hav the following statement in the edit summary: "Double-slit experiment, Wave–particle duality, Delayed choice quantum eraser, Quantum eraser experiment" in the edit summaries. My reply was "Absolutely no explanation for these additions.


 * That is a very weird statement. This is as if you said: "There is no explanation why you edited wikipedia." Therefore I did not consider it to be an explanation for the revert, because it was vague and completely meaningless. It should have been obvious (self-explanatory) for everyone that I made these edits, because I noticed that these 4 unsolved phenomena are not listed in the list of unsolved problems in physics. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Questions posed already appear in some of this text already."


 * This is not true.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This IS a reasonable reason, and I


 * No it is not, not according to WP:ROWN.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

reverted it because there is no acceptable citeable references to support your contention.


 * I looked at the page before making the edits, and I saw that many, if not most, of the entries were without any citations, so the obvious assumption was that because all the entries have links to separate wikipedia articles with citations, and this wikipedia article is specific, because it only lists the unsolved problems without going into any details, therefore no citations are needed, otherwise there would be no entries in the article without citations and there were plenty.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What you should have done was go to the talkpage and explain these edits, and when a


 * There is no obligation to explain any edits in the talk page when making them. These edits were self-explanatory. If you had any objections you should have invited me to the talk page and explain your objections there and not revert (violating the reasonable WP:ROWN, as well as WP:AGF) my good edits, done in good faith. I had no reasons to go to the talk page, because from my point of view everything was fine and done by the book, so I would have had nothing to say on the talk page. In such case like this only the person who had some objections could start a discussion regarding his/her objections, becasue only he/she knows what his/her objections are and not the original editor.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

second editor reverted you that should have told you to start a discussion on that talkpage. Saying "Do not remove before reaching consensus to remove." isn't 'seeking consensus' e,g. The process of WP:BRD.
 * When adding an edit summary, it clearly states: "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was."


 * Yes, you should have provided a meaningful and based on true facts summary, and you didn't, and I pointed it out in the summary of my reverts, as the reason for reverting and invited you to talk page, but you did not start an entry here, so I had no-one to talk to here back then.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I did completely read through your edits, and thought they were contentious. e.g. Inertia (the article mentions no such problem, but admits there has been studies into theorizing about inertia.) My edit ultimately hinges on your wrong contention "...but still the mechanism causing its formation is unknown." Who says this? What source? (the reference given only talks about 'quantised inertia.') Really. "...the principle of inertia is intimately linked with the principles of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum." F=ma is basic physics - observational fact - that has changed not since Newton and only in respect to the frame of reference. (Are you contending mass and acceleration, or at least their product, is not understood?)


 * You seem to confuse properties of inertia (or properties of matter) with source and mechanisms responsible for inertia formation. The latter we do not know. That is why physicists only assume that inertia is just a property of matter, which is an euphemism for saying we do not know. Many big wigs tried to solve that mystery and so far failed. If we knew what inertia is, that would be great, because then we could probably learn to manipulate it (we then most likely would have no more problems with g force for accelerating objects). I cited the most recent paper trying to solve that mystery. If you bothered to read it, you would see among others this sentence: "The property known as inertia has never been adequately explained, and has been rather a neglected part of physic".
 * The author of that article tried to figure out what is inertia by applying his hypothesis of quantised inertia - it is a new hypothesis, not confirmed yet by experiments, so that means that we still do not know if his hypothesis is true, therefore we still do not know what is the property of the matter called inertia. If you think otherwise please provide me with evidence that we know what inertia is, and who and when received the Nobel prize for this discovery (because certainly discovery of such fundamental nature would be awarded with that prize). Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The rest of your stated changes are for from 'unsolved', and the changes I read of your edits looks like written by an editor who has problems accepting/understanding basic relativity and quantum mechanics. e.g. Saying "Gravity: What is the source and nature of gravity? Why does it exist? What is the mechanism of gravity formation?" is far from 'unsolved'. e.g. The 'nature of gravity' is about relativity's spacetime. Its source is mass (Higgs mechanism for gauge bosons), and likely from gravitons in quantum field theory.


 * Again you confuse properties of phenomena with the phenomena itself. We do not know if there exist graviton - it is just a hypothesis. As above if you believe that we know what gravity is, please prove it. I already provided citations which quote gravity as one of the biggest unsolved mysteries.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Summary General evidence suggests, these particular edits are probably motivated by something else (theological, perhaps?), and without any reasoning nor even some


 * ROTFL. You are violating WP:AGF with your religious obsession. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

edit summary these edits were rightfully reverted. When you outrageously said:
 * "Every educated man knows (or should know) that we still do not know what is the nature and source of inertia, gravity and the effects seen in the double slit experiments. That knowledge is an obvious, basic knowledge everyone should have from elementary school, so I do not see a reason to gather a lot of citation, one citation per each entry is more than enough, but I can add more if that would consensus, I just don't see a reasonable reason for doing that in this case. All other entries in that article are either without any sources or just with one source, so why in this case (an obvious case) anyone would want more" and
 * "I assume that people who oppose these obvious edits know what really is inertia, gravity and the effects seen in the double slit experiments."

This is both wrong and misses the whole point. There is a huge difference between 'unsolved problem' and 'incomplete problem.' Blaming everyone else for your follies is one thing, but I have not read anything by you addressing that these are indeed some "unsolved problem."


 * Not my fault that you ignored the citations I provided. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

If anything, you seem to heavily rely on intuition; aka. "I was so shocked that this fundamental phenomena are not listed here that I decided to make an edit..." Science (and needed consensus) says otherwise. Sorry.


 * Not true. You have not proved that. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I am an educated person, I've taught both physics and astronomy, and I absolutely don't see any of defense for your position here. Worse you are unable/unwilling even


 * And that appears to be the problem. It seems that because this is your profession you are not objective, it seems that you are unable or at least very reluctant to admit that physicists still do not know the mechanisms behind these fundamental phenomena, because apparently that would somehow in your consciousness or subconsciousness discredit your profession. But it is not your fault that we still do not know these things, so do not feel bad about it. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

to explain or support your edits, I am now deemed somehow to be some "sadistic pervert" or "dishonest".


 * Not at all, you at least tried now to enter meaningful conversation. The only problem was that you should have started with that, and not with the reverts without any reasonable, meaningful and true edit summary. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

After reading Talk:List of unsolved problems in physics, I think you perhaps realistically need to reassess the reason you are contribute here. Think about it.


 * No worries, you made sure (by you I mean also other people) that this was a very unpleasant experience. So I won't be contributing to Wikipedia anymore after completion of this article edit, because this is a very hostile environment for genuine editors, so this is not a place for me. It is only a shame that quality of Wikipedia articles suffer as the result. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: Looking at the item Interpretation of quantum mechanics should be removed from this article too! Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Interpretation of quantum mechanics as arrow of time are exceptions but they are so well-known dilemmas in the physics literature that I think should remain. Also, the interpretation of quantum mechanics also includes the measure problem which is still relevant. MaoGo (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "So I won't be contributing to Wikipedia anymore after completion of this article edit, because this is a very hostile environment for genuine editors, so this is not a place for me. It is only a shame that quality of Wikipedia articles suffer as the result."


 * Good luck with that. It is now clear you point blank refuse to accept responsibility for your own inordinate actions. Also pretending to be the victim here is just sad. Really. All "genuine editors" don't behave this way.

Arianewiki1 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Is that everything you have to say? I made the edit, then added sources. Nobody, including you, has shown any evidence (reliable sources) proving to the contrary. So do you approve my edits now? If not, please explain why and prove your point of view with reliable sources. Because that's what "genuine editors" should do on wikipedia. I did that, nobody was able to show any reliable evidence to the contrary (what does not surprise me, because I know that there is no such evidence), so there is no reason anymore not to edit this article the same way as I previously did.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

In saying "I made the edit, then added sources." is a deliberate distortion. Worse. You know it. (Your contempt here is, frankly, despicable.)


 * You're violating WP:AGF again. What I said is the truth, it is a shame that you do not see this.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Truth. You only added one source "",


 * I added 4 different sources to my edit, everyone can check it out, so what's the point of saying otherwise? Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

being "Inertia from an asymmetric Casimir effect.", and have solely based it on the abstract first line "The property of inertia has never been fully explained." (Note the word 'fully'.)


 * Why do you lie again? I quoted you, in my last message, a sentence from the paper, not the abstract, which proves that inertia is an unexplained phenomenon (there is no theory explaining inertia, only hypotheses, like this one): "If you bothered to read it, you would see among others this sentence: "The property known as inertia has never been adequately explained, and has been rather a neglected part of physic"." Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Although this paper concludes: "A new model for inertia (MiHsC or quantised inertia) has been suggested that assumes that 1) inertia is due to Unruh radiation and 2) this radiation is subject to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect." Scientific consensus (and consensus here) deems it unlikely, as there is few citations (only zero independent source) since this paper was published in 2003. Frankly it is a no more than a thought experiment.  It is no 'unsolved problem in physics.


 * Please state the facts correctly, it was published in 2013, not 2003 as you say. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So what you are saying (deliberately?) is quite untrue, based in the 'evidence'. Saying "Nobody, including you, has shown any evidence (reliable sources) proving to the contrary." is a now shown as an utter lie. (being stated multiple times before). Now you do it again.


 * What I said is true, everyone can check it out that I added reliable sources, from which we can figure out that these phenomena are unsolved problems in physics, so I am surprised that you chose deliberately to lie like this and say otherwise without any evidence based in reliable sources, which would prove your opinion. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Again. The onus of proof is your responsibility not mine (or anyone else.)


 * I did prove my point of view by providing reliable sources confirming that these phenomena are unsolved problems in physics, so now is your turn to prove otherwise by quoting reliable sources, if you think that your POV is the correct one. You have not done that yet. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Bottom line 

Inertia via F=ma is immutable in standard physics and relativity, hence, is 'solved'.


 * You again mistake properties of inertia with inertia. Why do physical objects show the resistance to any change in its state of motion? What is the source of that resistance? Do you know that? No, we do not know that, hence we do not know what is inertia, what mechanism causes it, what is its source. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that? Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Some possible quantum mechanical effect is speculative, which the scientific community seemingly rejects as plausible or very likely (evidence by few published related citations.) It cannot be an 'unsolved problem in physics' because there are simpler alternatives and observations supporting the current. All unsolved problems in physics require no alternative nor observation. Hence, have NO explanation. Inertia, gravity, Double-slit experiment, Wave–particle duality, all do.

So any future article edits like the ones you made will be rightfully reverted.


 * Wikipedia editors are not experts, so carrying out an academic discussion is pointless for the purpose of editing wikipedia. Wikipedia by its rules is edited only based on reliable sources, so if you want to prove your point of view you have to quote reliable sources in support of your POV. I did that, you did not. Period. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I will no longer be responding any further to this. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * If you are not going to respond then your POV could not be considered a valid one, because you have not shown any reliable sources in support of your POV.


 * Wikipedia consensus is not reached by voting, but by providing with reliable sources in support of ones POV. I provided such sources, my opponents did not. I succesfully rebutted POVs of people who had different views. Therefore it has to be concluded that there is consensus to make the edits I propopsed. I'll wait for about 3 more days to allow possible rebuttals quoting reliable sources, and if nothing will change then I will assume that the consensus has been reached to make the edits. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Consensus has most certainly not been reached in favor of your edits. Your sourcing was inadequate, as I explained in my first comment, far above now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We have no empirical evidence suggesting that general relativity is inadequate for explaining classical phenomena. In fact, we are now living in an age of precision GR . Consequently, the common opinion of the physics community is that, if you seek a more fundamental theory from which general relativity emerges, you should look for a quantum theory of gravity. The source you provided in your bullet point about gravity is actually an example of this view ("Physicists want to squeeze little old gravity into the standard model—the crown-jewel theory of modern physics that explains three other fundamental forces in physics", etc.). Likewise, if you want to explain why inertia works the way it does, you need to explain why inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal, or in other words, you need to justify Einstein's principle of equivalence. So, again, in the mind of the typical physicist, "Why inertia?" is bound up with the question, "Why does general relativity work?", which the conventional wisdom holds to be a question we will answer when we see how GR emerges as the classical limit of the correct quantum theory of gravity.
 * You cite a paper by Zeilinger and collaborators in support of "wave-particle duality" being a great mystery. That paper clarifies that by wave-particle duality, they mean the principle that a linear superposition of quantum states is again a quantum state. Furthermore, they indicate that the essence of the phenomenon is captured by the Mach–Zehnder interferometer and the interference effects it demonstrates. There is a school of thought which holds that the superposition principle and Mach–Zehnder interference are not the most surprising features of quantum mechanics, because they also appear in theories that are classical &mdash; indeed, in theories based on local hidden variables . Zeilinger himself has advocated a position much like the one I alluded to above: that we can answer the question "Why is quantum mechanics the right theory, instead of some other one?" by finding a better set of postulates from which quantum mechanics can be derived . Moreover, your reference for delayed-choice experiments being a great mystery (by Ma, Kofler and Zeilinger) states that delayed-choice experiments are interesting, but not paradoxical, and they only "mimic" an influence from the future to the past. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Someone told me several days ago that this discussion had been resolved. So how's that going? Look, if someone has an addition to this article, may I suggest that they do it one item at a time so that each addition can be properly discussed. If you come onto a large, old, highly worked article and add a bunch of bold changes at once without discussing them first — and then express indignation that they were all reverted — you should expect to ruffle some feathers.  -Jord gette   [talk]  19:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did edit one item at a time, but they were all reversed together. It was obvious for me that inertia, gravity and double split experiments are unsolved problems in physics. I knew it for ages. So I believed that it is obvious for others as well, therefore I had no reason to discuss anything, because in my opinion it was a non-controversial subject, so I did not expect any objections to these edits. If I knew that there would be a resistance I would not have made these edits, because I dislike the hostile atmosphere, which is intrinsically associated with wikipedia editing on subjects which could cause a disagreement. This hostile environment is created by unreasonable editors, who disregard evidence presented and just push their POV regardless of everything. They do it despite the fact that this diagram says that in all situations all editors should always spread love WikiLove ("Shower them with Wikilove"), while I experience quite the opposite from some people here, without any good reason. As a result it seems that apparently I have to be a "teacher" of physics here, teaching them what they do not know. I do not want to do that really. They should learn themselves what they do not know and do not expect me to teach them physics here. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I shall defend my position here.


 * I said. "In saying "I made the edit, then added sources." is a deliberate distortion. Worse.


 * You know it. (Your contempt here is, frankly, despicable.)


 * Truth. You only added one source ""[7], being "Inertia from an asymmetric Casimir effect.", and have solely based it on the abstract first line "The property of inertia has never been fully explained." (Note the word 'fully'.)


 * Yet your outrageous replied: "I added 4 different sources to my edit, everyone can check it out, so what's the point of saying otherwise?"


 * We were only talking about your inertia edit here.


 * As for: "Please state the facts correctly, it was published in 2013, not 2003 as you say. ", it was a simple typo. A mistake. The link given clearly is 2013.

Warning. Deception will not win any argument here. Reading WP:Honest : "Withholding of information that contradicts other information, or filtering out data-points that do not match one's assumptions, is dishonesty by omission."

It is clear that tcited paper "Inertia from an asymmetric Casimir effect." does not say what you claim, and therefore is an unacceptable cite for the article. It is dishonest to ignore that as fact. Even Michael McCulloch says "I've suggested (& published in 21 journal papers) a new theory called quantised inertia (or MiHsC) that assumes that inertia is caused by relativistic horizons damping quantum fields."


 * Can you provide independent verification that such views are scientifically 'mainstream'?
 * Can you provide actual independent cites: "that inertia is caused by relativistic horizons damping quantum fields."

I thought so. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"We were only talking about your inertia edit here."

No, we were talking about all my edits, because you reverted all my edits at once! Have you already forgotten what you did?

"Warning. Deception will not win any argument here. Reading WP:Honest : "Withholding of information that contradicts other information, or filtering out data-points that do not match one's assumptions, is dishonesty by omission.""

You are again violating WP:AGF by assuming without any good reason whatsoever, that I am not honest. I have been honest through all this discussion. In fact I am an honest person all the time, both in internet and in real life. With every your message you are violating WP:AGF more and more, despite the warnings not to do so anymore. So what's your problem really? Cannot your discussion be substantive only, instead of personal one?

''"As for: "Please state the facts correctly, it was published in 2013, not 2003 as you say. ", it was a simple typo. A mistake. The link given clearly is 2013."''

Regarding the date correction, regardless of the reason for giving incorrect date by you, I had to correct that date, because it was misleading other people into beliving that it is an old (and therefore perhaps solved now) problem. By quoting the most recent paper on this subject I am proving that this is still an ongoing unsolved problem.

Please note, that if I wanted not to assume that it was a genuine mistake of yours, I could have accused you that you deliberately put a wrong date to mislead other people into thinking that it is an old, and therefore solved now problem, therefore you violated WP:Honest. I am not doing that because unlike you I am not going to violate WP:AGF here. I mention this only because I find it funny that you accuse me without any grounds whatsoever of allegedly not being honest, when in fact you could be accused of that (and not only this time).

"It is clear that tcited paper "Inertia from an asymmetric Casimir effect." does not say what you claim, and therefore is an unacceptable cite for the article . It is dishonest to ignore that as fact."

I have no idea why you say that. The paper clearly states: "The property known as inertia has never been adequately explained, and has been rather a neglected part of physic". Hard for any more clear message that inertia is part of unsolved problems in physics. But if that is not enough for you check out the earlier works on inertia by Ernst Mach, Albert Einstein, Dennis William Sciama, and Bernard Haisch.

''"Even Michael McCulloch says[15] "I've suggested (& published in 21 journal papers) a new theory called quantised inertia (or MiHsC) that assumes that inertia is caused by relativistic horizons damping quantum fields."

Can you provide independent verification that such views are scientifically 'mainstream'? Can you provide actual independent cites: "that inertia is caused by relativistic horizons damping quantum fields.""''

That is completly irrelevant to the issue we have, because we are not debating about a new theory called quantised inertia but about inertia. So this is completely irrelevant whether his theory (or rather hypothesis) of quantised inertia is correct and mainstream or not. You are apparently confusing things again. Quantised inertia and inertia are not synonyms. McCulloch's publication is not the primary source showing that we do not know yet what inertia is, because before him others tried to work out what inertia is and failed.

If you believe that we know what inertia is then please quote evidence from reliable sources which explain what is the source of inertia, and which answer these questions: '''Why do physical objects show the resistance to any change in its state of motion? What is the source of that resistance? Why objects have tendency to keep moving in a straight line at a constant velocity?'''

You can't, can you. I thought so. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Note to the editors who replied with links to papers: I'll get back to you with my reply when I'll find some time to read and digest through the papers you are referring to, I am too busy to do it right now, so please be patient, it can be days before I'll get back to this. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The answer to your question in bold is "Because that is a consequence of the most fundamental laws of physics". A primary goal of physics is to find the most fundamental laws governing the universe, and explain everything else in terms of them. I would say that every single item on this List falls into that category, insofar as if we knew the most fundamental laws of the universe and could mathematically work out all their consequences, every one of the problems on this list would be solved in the process.


 * You seem to be alluding to a different "problem": Why are the most fundamental laws of physics what they are? Why aren't we beings in, say, a Game of Life Universe? After all, there is nothing logically impossible about living in a Game of Life Universe. (Very large complex structures in the Game of Life universe can self-replicate, perform arbitrarily complicated algorithms, and as far as anyone knows, they would be thinking feeling beings if such a universe existed.) And if we all lived in the a Game of Life Universe, there would be no inertia or gravity! Well, I personally don't know why we live in this universe / multiverse rather than a Game of Life Universe, I don't think anyone knows, and I would not be surprised if we never know even in 1000 years. I feel like it's not even a physics question, more like metaphysics. But I'm not totally opposed to adding one item to this page along the lines of "After we figure out the very most fundamental laws of the universe/multiverse, then we will still want to know why those are the laws rather than something else." (Maybe this entry could mention the Mathematical universe hypothesis for example.)


 * That's my most charitable interpretation of your proposed entries. The other possibility is that your real underlying complaint is: "I find inertia to be unintuitive, and I just can't believe it's been fully explained until it feels very intuitive to me." Well, this would be an unsolved problem in physics pedagogy, not an unsolved problem in physics! (Maybe meditating on Noether's theorem would help you?) The question of what people find intuitive vs unintuitive is deeply tied up in details of various modules in the human brain and in how the human body interacts with the world, and at the end of the day there is just no guarantee that any individual will find the most true and fundamental laws of physics to be intuitive at a gut level. --Steve (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Phycists even look for answers why Big Bang happened and what was before it (yes, the dogma has already been changing, some of them do not consider it the wrong question to ask anymore), are there more universes, how many universes are there, how many dimensions are there and what is their physical meaning, so why wouldn't physicists look for answers to even more simple or basic questions, which are asked in the edits I did? As already pointed out before, if we knew what was the source of inertia, why matter has such a property as inertia, we probably would be able to manipulate it, which would have huge practical consequences and applications, the same goes with gravity. So no, these are not metaphysical questions, but physical ones, which some physicists already have been asking themselves long time ago and still ask themselves, and carry out reaserach to answer these questions, as I already proved with the sources I cited. We do not know what fundamental laws of physics are causing the phenomena described in the edits, and even if we did, this is not a list of unsolved fundamental laws, but a list of unsolved problems in physics, so it is correct to leave these questions is that list, because these are unsolved problems in physics. My motive for those edits was purely scientific, I do not know why you and Arianewiki1 seek other motives - that's weird. I suspect that perhaps that way you try to soothe your mind or conscience, which is beginning to tell you that your opponent in the discussion is right. :) Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Or maybe they don't like your edits because you haven't provided reliable sources saying that the "source of inertia" (for example) is an unsolved problem in physics.  -Jord gette  [talk]  22:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you consider EPL to be a non-reliable source? The paper from EPL proves my point in two ways: 1. by directly stating that inertia is an unsolved problem in physics: "The property known as inertia has never been adequately explained, and has been rather a neglected part of physic"; 2. by postulating a new hypothesis explaining the source of inertia called Quantised Inertia. That new hypothesis has not been confirmed yet by experiments and is not a mainstream theory. That proves my point that inertia is an unsolved problem in physics, because if Quantised Inertia hypothesis was already the proved, mainstream theory of inertia, then I would not be able to say that inertia is an unsolved problem in physics, and since it is an unproved non-mainstream hypothesis, it proves my point that inertia is an unsolved problem in physics, because there would be no need for a new hypothesis, if there already was a mainstream theory explaining what is the source of inertia. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Steve here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All the papers I've seen about the multiverse, why the big bang, why 3+1 dimensions of spacetime, why the universe, etc., are technical papers that presuppose rather than derive the most fundamental laws of physics and their mathematical structure. So when you read these papers you'll see quantum field theory calculations, and you'll see GR calculations, and you'll see string theory calculations, but you won't see a discussion of "why are we talking about string theory in the first place rather than the rules of the Game of Life etc.". These papers are basically taking what we know about the fundamental laws of physics, and extrapolating it beyond the physical bounds of this universe.
 * Inertia is a cousin of Conservation of momentum, which in turn is a direct and inevitable consequence of the fundamental laws of the universe, to the best of our current knowledge. If you want to understand conservation of momentum at a gut level I again suggest that you ponder Noether's theorem. Unfortunately, understanding it will not help you "manipulate" it, because (local) conservation of momentum is an iron-clad law of physics with no exceptions. I also suggest that you read WP:FRINGE which is pertinent to Mike McCulloch's work. --Steve (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I finally figured out why there is such a resistance of some people here to the facts shown in these edits. School books virtually always say what we know, they almost never say what we do not know, so just because there are in those school books mentioned many times terms like inertia, gravity, double slit experiments your mind tricks you into believing that we know everything about those phenomena, while in reality, regarding the aforementioned terms, we only described how objects behave (we have theories for that), but we do not know why they behave like this (we have only hypotheses for that). Researchers even in scientific papers usually avoid saying what they don't know, because it is expected to publish only what they know, what they discovered or invented. It seems that the mind of some people apparently could not figure out that the lack of these explanations in school books means that we do not know these things. So when someone comes and reveals to you that we do not know really what these phenomena are (what is their origin, cause, source and mechanism) your mind is in shock and you switch into denial mode, trying to defend your old, wrong point of view, which you held all your life. Because of that shock you simply cannot accept that you were wrong about this your entire life, and that is the source of your resistance, confusion and uneasyness. But don't worry, when you chill out after the first shock your mind will eventually accept the facts, because it would have no choice, since the facts are what they are. The sooner it happens the better for all of us, because then we would stop wasting our time here. To speed up this process and to ease your apparent mental suffering that some of you experience as a result of that shock, I will add more sources. My edits will then have more citations then any other entries in that article - I am reminding that most of other entries have either none or just one citation, so you should not treat differently my entries than the others, but you do, because of your apparent shock, so I forgive you. "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/arthur_schopenhauer_103608 The cause of inertia is a question we should expect science to answer. The objective of science is to explain what happens (which we are getting pretty good at doing) and why it happens (we are not so strong here). The cause of inertia isn’t known - but the consequences of it are very well understood - and actually quite simple, yet some people discussing here seem to not see any difference between the consequences and the cause. You can't win the argument just claiming that inertia is a fundamental property of matter or that it is a consequence of the most fundamental laws of physics, because there have been physicists, including notable physicists, trying to find the cause or the origin of inertia, and they published papers with their hypotheses about that. You also can't win the argument by carrying out a philosophical academic debate here. That is not how editing wikipedia works, because wikipedia editors are not experts. The only way for you to prove your point of view is to quote reliable sources, which in an unambigous way for every wikipedia editor (i.e. by default a non-expert wikipedia editor) would show that the origin of inertia has been found and that there is a mainstream theory about that confirmed by experiments. We both know that you will not be able to find such a theory, so why don't you stop wasting our time and agree that the facts are that there are reliable sources showing that inertia is an unsolved problem in physics and that there are no reliable sources showing to the contrary. Regarding your notion that understanding inertia allegedly would not help us to control it, this view is not held by those scientists who worked on inertia: "But the paper raises an even more provocative notion: that inertia, once understood, might be controlled.". "But he hopes to do it with the help of other researchers, who might be lured by the tantalizing implications of the theory, among them the possibility that by altering the properties of the vacuum, researchers might control inertia. ". "If the quantum vacuum could be distorted on a larger scale, says Haisch, "then we open a door on a way of perhaps someday controlling inertia, and we had no inkling that was even possible in principle before.""""If nothing else," he says, "controlling inertia is a possibility that might just encourage others to dig deeper."" http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/science.html Musashi miyamoto (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Reverted inertia edit

Let's see. (Specifically on inertia edit(s).)

In Musashi miyamoto (Mm) own words:


 * "The paper clearly states: "The property known as inertia has never been adequately explained, and has been rather a neglected part of physic". The author of that paper tried to figure out what is inertia by applying his hypothesis of quantised inertia - it is a new hypothesis, not confirmed yet by experiments, so that means that we still do not know if his hypothesis is true, therefore we still do not know what is the property of the matter called inertia."

Yet when Arianewiki1 directly asked:


 * "Can you provide independent verification that such views are scientifically 'mainstream'?


 * Can you provide actual independent cites: "that inertia is caused by relativistic horizons damping quantum fields."

Mm own words said:


 * "That is completly irrelevant to the issue we have, because we are not debating about a new theory called quantised inertia but about inertia. So this is completely irrelevant whether his theory (or rather hypothesis) of quantised inertia is correct and mainstream or not."

Then when Arianewiki1 said:


 * "Inertia via F=ma is immutable in standard physics and relativity, hence, is 'solved'."

Mm own words said in reply:


 * "You again mistake properties of inertia with inertia." (Interpreted as 'properties of inertia' ≠ 'inertia'.)

Clear contradictions. So is it or isn't it?

Ergo.


 * a.) If "quantised inertia" is not about "inertia", then the cite is not relevant.


 * b.) If "quantised inertia" is about "inertia", it is not relevant, as the cite does not conclude this. (e.g. It is an inference not a fact.)


 * c) If "properties of inertia" is different from "inertia", is not relevant unless you cite it. (e.g. It is an inference not a fact.)

Fact. Therefore, Mm has not provided sufficient evidence to verify these statements as true.

Again (Mm own words) ;, "...which some physicists already have been asking themselves long time ago and still ask themselves, and carry out research to answer these questions, as I already proved with the sources I cited. " (My underlining.)

No. Mm has NOT proven this. When asked for legitimate cites to confirm/deny this, yet: Mm STILL AVOIDS OR COMPLETELY REFUSE TO COMPLY WITH THIS REQUEST.

Reading WP:Honest : "Withholding of information that contradicts other information, or filtering out data-points that do not match one's assumptions, is dishonesty by omission." Stop doing that.


 * 1) If Mm cannot supply suitable or relevant cites to verify Mm claims, any added text will always be rightfully removed/reverted


 * 2) If Mm have not got consensus for Mm assertions, any added text will always be rightfully removed/reverted

Failure to comply with either of these editing requirements, regardless what Mm proposes or says here, will mean any such edits will never be acceptable.

Hence the following text written by Mm needs to be provided. Specifically:


 * "Inertia: What is source of inertia? Various efforts by notable physicists such as Ernst Mach (see Mach's principle), Albert Einstein, Dennis William Sciama, and Bernard Haisch have been put towards the study and theorizing of inertia. The most recent theory of inertia known as quantised inertia by Mike McCulloch is pending experimental confirmation."

In given citing : Mike McCulloch is not a valid cite, if as Mm says, "..., because we are not debating about a new theory called quantised inertia but about inertia."

Onus of prove is Musashi miyamoto alone, as they are the one making the contention. If Mm disagrees, well this should be tested with WP:Requests for comment or RfC, under WP:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. (So far, it is now 5 to 1 that disagrees with Mm.)


 * Note: Apologies for 'shouting' but I do it to be implicit to finally deal with this unreasonable editor. Please, in responding, leave the reply under the line. Thanks.


 * Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not quite follow you, but it appears that your are not being WP:Honest, because you are filtering out sentences that do not match your assumptions. All your concerns have been already answered, but you chose to ignore those answers. I would have to reiterate what I already said and what you have omitted. Therefore this time I am not going to correct your incorrect statements point by point as I did before, because then you would ignore my answers again and I would have to repeat myself again, and as the result we would be going in circles. Instead I recommend that you read what I have replied to others, because in a way that answers your concerns, too. I have to point out that you also again violate WP:AGF and you are not being WP:COOL. It appears that your main concern has been that I provided only one source for inertia edit. I am reminding that nearly all other entries in that article have either none or only one source (and those sources often do not show in an unambiguous way what is claimed in the edits), therefore you should not demand from me more, because it would not be equal against other edits. But having said that, in order to end this silly discussion, I will add more sources. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Not able to reply? I thought so. Any future controversial edits to "List of unsolved problems in physics ", please use this talk page in future and get consensus. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am simply busy. I am sorry about that, but wikipedia cannot be my priority. In each of your reply you overestimate by a long shot your 'arguments'. How many times I have to prove that, yet? I will get back to the discussion when I can. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources showing that inertia (its cause / origin / source) is an unsolved problem in physics:

1. The newest paper hypothesising what is the source of inertia says: "The property known as inertia has never been adequately explained, and has been rather a neglected part of physic." EPL (Europhysics Letters), Volume 101, Number 5, 2013 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/101/59001/meta https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2775

2. Earlier Mach, Einstein, Feynman and Haisch tried and failed to work out what is the cause or source of inertia:

"As a child, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman asked his father why a ball in his toy wagon moved backward whenever he pulled the wagon forward. His father said that the answer lay in the tendency of moving things to keep moving, and of stationary things to stay put. "This tendency is called inertia," said Feynman senior. Then, with uncommon wisdom, he added: "But nobody knows why it is true." That's more than even most physicists would say. To them, inertia does not need explaining, it simply "is." But since the concept was first coined by Galileo in the 17th century, some scientists have wondered if, perhaps, inertia is not intrinsic to matter at all, but is somehow acquired. Those who have tried to come to grips with inertia include Feynman junior, once he had grown up, and Albert Einstein, who tried, and failed, to show that inertia was related to the arrangement of matter in the universe. [...] One inspiration for the effort was a much earlier try, by the German philosopher-physicist Ernst Mach. In 1872, Mach argued that acceleration, and hence inertia, is not absolute, but only has meaning within a frame of reference. For Mach, that frame of reference consisted of the other matter in the universe: After all, in an utterly empty space, how do you know you are moving? Einstein later tried and failed to work that notion into general relativity. Haisch and his colleagues also invoke a frame of reference: not the distant stars, but the quantum vacuum." SCIENCE, Vol. 263, pp. 613-614, 1994 http://www.calphysics.org/haisch/science.html

3. "Inertia as formulated by Galileo (ca. 1638) was simply the property of a material object to either remain at rest or in uniform motion in the absence of external forces. In his first law of motion, Newton (ca. 1687) merely restated the Galilean proposition. However, in his second law, Newton expanded the concept of inertia into a fundamental quantitative property of matter. By proposing a relationship between external force acting upon an object and change in that object's velocity (F=ma), he defined and quantified the property of inertial mass. Since the time of Newton there has been only one noteworthy attempt to associate an underlying origin of inertia of an object with something external to that object: Mach's principle. Since motion would appear to be devoid of meaning in the absence of surrounding matter, it was argued by Mach (ca. 1883) that the local property of inertia must somehow asymptotically be a function of the cosmic distribution of all other matter. Mach's principle has remained, however, a philosophical statement rather than a testable scientific proposition. Thus apart from Mach's principle, the fact that matter has the property of inertia is a postulate of physics, and while special and general relativity both involve the inertial properties of matter, they provide no deeper insight into an origin of inertia than Newton s definition of inertia as a fundamental property of matter." Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff Phys. Rev. A 49, 678, 1994

4. The effort by Haisch et al has been criticised on relativistic, and other, grounds, by, for example, Levin (PHYSICAL REVIEW A 79, 012114, 2009), so it shows that Haisch's hypothesis is not an accepted theory explaining cause of inertia.

"In (1), Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff HRP proposed an explanation of inertia. [...] Based on this mathematical result, which unfortunately turns out to be incorrect, the authors conclude that this averaged magnetic Lorentz force is indeed an inertial force, and when divided by the given acceleration originates the inertial mass of the parton, different from its bare mass." Levin PHYSICAL REVIEW A 79, 012114, 2009

5. "The cause of inertia has been an issue in theoretical physics since the time of Newton. Bishop George Berkeley, in particular, pointed out in Newton's day that in the absence of other matter in a universe, all discussion of the motion of a single body was meaningless. And since motion [i.e., momentum] is the measure of inertia, by inference objects in otherwise empty universes should have no inertia. Ernst Mach repeated Berkeley's criticism toward the end of the 19th century, adding an insinuendo that some physical agent should be held accountable for forces of inertial reaction. The obvious candidate for the agent of inertial reaction forces is gravity because of its universal coupling to mass, or so it appeared to Einstein and some of his contemporaries. Newtonian gravity cannot be made to account for inertial forces however. But Einstein hoped to be able to encompass, as he named it, "Mach's principle" in his theory of gravity, general relativity theory (GRT). (Einstein's efforts in this direction are nicely recounted by Julian Barbour [1990] and Carl Hoefer [1995].) Einstein's attempts to make GRT Machian were not a complete success. But his insight has fired the imagination of many of the cleverest thinkers of the past century. After all, Mach's principle -- the gravitational induction and relativity of inertia -- is the most extreme statement of the principle of relativity. The idea that inertial forces should be caused by the rest of the matter in the universe, once apprehended, has an ineluctable intuitive obviousness about it that is hard to resist. This has led to continuing debate among experts as to the real meaning of the principle, and arguments over how it is to be formally realized in physical theory. The lack of consensual accord among experts on the meaning of Mach's principle has left room for some, Rueda and Haisch (1998a,b) for example, to claim that inertia should not be understood in the context of gravity theory; that inertia is in fact is a consequence of electromagnetic interactions of accelerating matter with a quantum mechanical vacuum fluctuation electromagnetic field." James F. Woodward and Thomas Mahood Foundations of Physics June 1999, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 899–930

6. "As Einstein has pointed out, general relativity does not account satisfactorily for the inertial properties of matter, so that an adequate theory of inertia is still lacking." "In this paper we construct a tentative theory to account for the inertial properties of matter. These properties imply that at each point of space there exists a set of reference frames in which Newton's laws of motion hold good—the so-called "inertial frames". If other frames are used, Newton's laws will no longer hold unless one introduces "fictitious" (inertial) forces which depend on the motion of these frames relative to an inertial frame. The question then arises : what determines the inertial frames ? Newton asserted that they were determined by absolute space. However, absolute space is not observable in any other way, and it has been suggested that it is more satisfactory to attempt to correlate the inertial frames with observable features of the universe. In particular, Berkeley (1) and Mach (2) maintained that inertial frames are those which are unaccelerated relative to the "fixed stars", that is, relative to a suitably defined mean of all the matter in the universe. This statement is usually known as Mach's principle. As this principle will be used as a guide in constructing our theory, we shall first discuss its general implications." Dennis Sciama Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 113, p.34, 1952

Unfortunately, Sciama's model doesn't fit very will with the standard relativistic theory of gravity, Einstein's General Relativity, and has not become an accepted, mainstream theory explaining origin of inertia.

So the proposed entry in the article will be:


 * Inertia: What is the cause, source, origin and nature of inertia? Various efforts by notable physicists such as Ernst Mach (see Mach's principle), Albert Einstein, Dennis William Sciama, Richard Feynman, Harold E. Puthoff and Bernard Haisch have been put towards the study and theorizing of inertia, but still the mechanism causing its formation is unknown.      The most recent hypothesis of inertia known as quantised inertia by Mike McCulloch  is pending experimental confirmation. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I oppose this addition for the reasons explained in WP:FRINGE and WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYN. --Steve (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither of these reasons apply here, so you're just pushing your POV. You should have neutral POV. There is no reason whatsoever not to add this edit. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I also oppose for the same reasons, WP:FRINGE, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYN. - DVdm (talk) 11:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate, stating this without any explanation is worthless.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See above and wp:NOTGETTINGIT. - DVdm (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You stated that you oppose for reasons WP:FRINGE, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYN, but you have not explained why you think my edit fulfills those reasons, so I am unable to see what is your reasoning, and I am unable to see if your reasoning is a correct one, and if it not a correct one I am unable to rebut it, because I do not know why you think like that. WP:FRINGE, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYN do not apply to my edit at all, so just stating that it does, without any proof and explanation why, is complettely worthless, because it does not say anything to me. It seems like you are just pushing your POV and avoid entering any discussion to explain your POV, because you are unable to explain it and prove it. The onus of proof is on you. I am waiting for it. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I too oppose this addition for the reasons explained in WP:FRINGE and WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYN. The above also looks like WP:Cherrypicking.
 * (F=ma is immutable. F=ma±x or F≠ma is theoretical, while, F=ma+? is certainly is not likely, as testing the physics shows no known deviation under space, spacetime nor quantum vacuum. To be an 'unsolved problem in physics' means our measures have to show it is not immutable. (Already, said by me and others, here.) F=ma sadly works 100% of time.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As already proved in the source no. 3 (work of Bernard Haisch et al) Newton defined and quantified the property of inertial mass by postulating F=ma, but by doing so he did not discover the origin of inertia, which remains unknown, as proved by 6 reliable sources quoted above. Work of the notable physicists on inertia is certainly not fringe. There is no other work on this subject by anyone else than them, which proves my point that this is an unsolved problem in physics, and I provided with primary, secondary, tertiary and so on sources proving that - each of these sources repeat that the source/cause/origin of inertia remains unknown - this is the only thing I had to prove with the sources, and I did that, so there is no reason whatsoever not to add this edit. Nobody quoted any sources proving to the contrary. Stating WP:FRINGE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYN and WP:Cherrypicking without any explanation is completelly worthless.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Ignoring WP:FRINGE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYN and WP:Cherrypicking without any explanation is completely worthless. As for "Nobody quoted any sources proving to the contrary." Untrue. Again they have, and they've explained why, but you just ignore it.
 * Sorry. The fault, dear Musashi miyamoto, is not in our stars, but in ourselves... Just saying. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please, stop making it personal. Focus on providing with sources to support your claim that the source/cause/origin of inertia is known. I quoted 6 sources, which prove that the source/cause/origin of inertia is unknown, you/they have not quoted even one reliable source proving unabigously that the source/cause/origin of inertia is known. I do not know why you refer to WP:FRINGE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYN and WP:Cherrypicking, because neither you nor anybody else explained that - I looked at all those links and they are not relevant in any way to my edit. Imagine if I reverted any of your correctly done edits and then as an explanation why I only said that I oppose your edit because of WP:FRINGE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYN and WP:Cherrypicking without showing you any proof or explanation why I think that that is allegedly the case. What would you do? Would you consider it fair and honest? Musashi miyamoto (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For starters, WP:FRINGE is relevant because you are putting fringe scientists on a par with Einstein. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then remove those that you consider fringe. What's the problem? However, even if something is fringe it does not mean that it is not notable enough not to be in wikipedia. There are plenty of examples of fringe inventions, scientists or theories in wikipedia. But the notion that the source/origin/cause of inertia is unknown is not fringe - it is mainstream, it has been said by the most notable physicists we had, in their papers and elsewhere. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "We're so lucky to be living in the first generation that finally got everything right": https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUuYHCpVAAErKsW.jpg ;) Musashi miyamoto (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I too oppose the edit. This does not appear to be an active area of research. Just because a few researchers have raised questions and are even doing research toward a question they have identified, and the editor has found them, does not mean this is a generally accepted problem in physics. I certainly oppose citing the arxiv paper as a possible solution. It's just one arxiv paper.  -Jord gette  [talk]  18:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The most recent paper on this topic is from 2013, so this is an active area of research. This is the fundamental question asked by the most notable physicists of our time: Ernst Mach, Albert Einstein, Dennis William Sciama, Richard Feynman, Harold E. Puthoff, Bernard Haisch, James F. Woodward and others. Just because they were unable to solve the problem does not mean that it is not a generally accepted problem in physics, quite to the contrary. I added 6 different sources, arxiv paper was only added, because it offers free access to the paper published in EPL. It does not 'present a solution', it proves that the question is still valid, as I explained to you in more details here - have you read it? Besides, quantised inertia is already present in the wikipedia article. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)