User talk:Davide.Sangalli

Hi, if you have something to tell me...well leave a message here! Bye

WikiProject Physics participation
You received this message because you have the User WikiProject Physics userbox, but are not listed on the list of WikiProject Physics participants. If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the list. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please return "modern interpretation" of absorber theory back to main article
It's a mistake to defer the section of "Modern Interpretation" to the talk page in my view. The resolution of causality is very important. The work of Moore and Scott is one of the very few results worthy of Physical Review Letters. Clearly it is more accepted by the community than, for example, Cramer's transactional interpretation, and certainly far better backed up mathematically and computationally. I would return it, even in a condensed form. There has been many citations to the absorber theory but largely discussion and interpretation, not actual results or proofs. We must not forget that the absorber theory remains controversial and the scientific community largely discarded it in favor of quantum field theory. Because of quantum "non-locality", many have a renewed interest in the absorber theory but they misuse it and there is so much nonsense about retro-causality. The modern interpretation is conservative and avoids that nonsense. I think it is salutary to return it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyMath (talk • contribs) 07:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear TonyMath I've answered you in the talk page of the absorber theory. Regards. Davide Sangalli 13:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello again.  I hope you are pleased with the presentation of material restored according to the outcome of our discussion.  I think you will find that it makes for a richer and more complete wikipedia article.  I am glad we had the discussion.  IMHO the work of Ed Jaynes  is invaluable.  I had heard mention of his work but that particular reference shows a much simpler and readable version of  Jayne's subtle and complex ideas.  I hope you will be pleased with the new version. I also look forward to mention of recent developments on aspects like quantum entanglement.TonyMath (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

External academic review and publication of Wikipedia pages
Hi Davide. In case you'd not come across it before, I thought I'd message to ask whether there are any wikipedia articles that you'd be interested in creating/updating/overhauling and submitting for external, academic peer review.

The WikiJournal of Science (www.wikijsci.org) couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. For existing Wikipedia articles, it's a great way to get additional feedback from external experts. Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as having changes integrated back into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards authors with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

Note that we have to publish under real names, so if you don't want your real name associated to your username, you may have to choose a topic that your username has not previously edited.

Anyway, let me know whether you'd be interested in putting an article through academic peer review (either solo, or with a team of coauthors). T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 10:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)