User talk:Herodotus007

Welcome!
Hello, Herodotus007, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

QMs
I have been studying and writing about metamaterials for over three years. Therefore, I have expertise in this area. I am insulted by the flippant comments left in the edit history characterizing my edits as "nonsense", and the removal of my studied and sourced material. Based the actions that I see, the words I see added to the article, and flippant comments in the edit history it appears that you are presently trying to figure out quantum metamaterials. In other words, I am not seeing someone who is not well versed on the subject. That is fine, but please do not remove my material and replace it with yours. I know these materials. I think you don’t understand that quantum metamaterials are versatile advanced materials that are under study. Each group of researchers study, theorizes, or designs a quantum metamaterial type with certain parameters and to produce a certain result. Fundamentally, these are materials designed to manipulate the radiated wavelength of interest. Hence, there are several applicable descriptions of quantum metamaterials. What I have in the introduction is a general description based on the sources I have in the article. It is also an accurate description which follows from the sources. Any engineer will recognize what I convey with my introduction. For example these quantum metamaterials extend the science of metamaterials. Also I think saying "nanoscopic" constituents is more accurate, and is what I meant, otherwise it gives the wrong impression. It also in the first reference of the aricle (in one of the introductory paragraphs). I have corrected that.

Quantum mechanical coherence is certainly another related description, but it seems less general than what I already have. It does belong in the article after my first introductory sentence. However, the sources in the article do not say “quantum dynamics”, “certain this or that” and some other wording that I copy edited. In this area I am seeing inexperience with editing articles on Wikipedia. Also I am seeing inexperience with this topic. Some of the wording that I see is cloudy or superfluous and comes from somewhere other than the sources. For the most part the idea that you are trying to get across is there. Those sentences just needed some tweaking to get to the idea. I checked the sources that you are using and they do not reflect some of your wording. Therefore, based on what I have communicated, I recommend that you follow my lead at the quantum metamaterial article.

Regards,
 * -- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr Quinn,

please, do not take my remarks personally. Unfortunately, you do not fully understand the topic you are writing about and do not quite follow the sources you have in the article. To be specific:

1) Quantum metamaterials are not necessarily "nanoscopic", however attractive this buzzword may be. As first proposed in Rakhmanov et al. (2008) (see also Zagoskin (2011)), a quantum metamaterial could be realized in microwave range using superconducting qubits, i.e., on micro-, not nanoscopic scale. By the way, you keep erasing the reference to Rakhmanov et al.(2008), even though it was submitted (October 2007) and published (April 2008) before Plumridge et al. (January 2008 and March 2008 resp.), and which is recognized as one of the pioneering works in, e.g., Felbacq and Antezza (2012)(Ref.4).

2) It is, at best, misleading to write about quantum metamaterial's "interaction with EM waves and matter waves". The "matter waves" in question refer to the quantum properties of the metamaterial itself. Your expression would rather apply to a simultaneous scattering of electromagnetic waves and, e.g., neutrons off a quantum metamaterial.

3) "Coherence" and "harmonic oscillation" is not the same.

4) "As each cell interacts with the radiated (?) source the whole system produces a coherent state" is a misleading statement. In quantum mechanics and especially quantum optics - of which quantum metamaterials is a recent offshoot - "coherent state", when used without further explanations, is understood in a very definite sense - as an eigenstate of the annihilation operator of a photon. You should rather say that quantum coherence is maintained in the system, while it interacts with the electromagnetic wave passing through it.

This is a new and challenging topic, and I fully understand the difficulties in trying to make it intelligible to a layman (or an engineer) without making factual errors or misleading statements. I appreciate your efforts and will be happy to help; contrary to what you may feel, I do know this area of physics pretty well.

Herodotus007 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what is meant by erasing the reference to Rakhmanov et al. If I took it out of the article as a peer reviewed reference - it was by accident. Go ahead and please restore it, or I will try to see what happened. If the text of the article is what is meant, I have tried to retain most of what you wrote.


 * As an aside, the best reason for nanoscopic might be because the research is progressing in that direction, or maybe that is not the best reason. Also, I haven't had a chance to read and assimilate the original paper (the pioneering work (s)). I did notice a conflict with what I was following so I decided to get back to it. I agree this is an important work. But should a general description of quantum metamaterials be applicable to only the microwave domain? What is your opinon of the "temporary" quotes in the external links? Also, nanoscopic or some such term may be appropriate as lower bound to the mesoscopic scale. I would rather have said something like mesoscopic (at least). There was another person who questioned the use of "nanoscopic".


 * I realize there are other interesting items in your response and I will have to get back to you soon. I would like it very much if you go ahead and make corrections in the article -- but please don't radically alter the article just yet. I can see that your knowledge in this matter is both important and useful. Also, please feel free to add material. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A further reply -- you are correct -- it is at best misleading misleading to write about quantum metamaterial's "interaction with EM waves and matter waves" for the reason you stated. Sorry about that -- OK. Yes I am making mistakes here. I am glad that you came along. Please go ahead and correct away!  Steve Quinn (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize that "coherence" and "harmonic oscillation" are not the same. I was attempting to write an analogy. However, the I can now see that way I wrote the sentence does not seem to present an analogy. So I see what you are saying. Thanks for pointing that out. It's probably not a good idea to have such an analogy anyway. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr Quinn,

thank you. I do not quite understand what the "temporary" quotes are - I certainly do not have much wiki experience. Concerning the quantum coherence and microwave range: There is nothing specific to the microwave range here. In order to fully realize the potential of a quantum metamaterial, it must maintain quantum coherence, whether it be in microwave or optical range. For example, in the end of Quach et al. (who deal with quantum range) there is a statement to this effect (when they talk about the bifocal optical elements). This point is more clear to the people with background in quantum computing than to those who come from the direction of conventional metamaterials - which is quite understandable. To the former, quantum coherence is an essential prerequisite; to the latter, quantum effects appear first as corrections to classical behaviour.

I will make some minor changes to the article. I will add the Rakhmanov paper - you already did this - great! - and a couple of recent Science and Nature papers on superconducting metamaterial prototypes.

Best regards, Herodotus007 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK great. Hopefully you can see that I corrected some errors. If you see more -- correct away! Thanks for your help. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)