User talk:HueSurname

Unreliable source
You have been adding this YouTube video to several pages in Wikipedia. Please don't do this. Teller is just informally discussing some of his ideas, this is not a WP:RS. Tercer (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll split my reply into three points:
 * Teller is most definitely an established expert in the field of quantum physics. His informal discussion of the Copenhagen interpretation should suffice. The source is definitely higher in quality compared to some other sources in the edited articles. The level of depth in the video matches the level of depth in the sections in the articles.
 * Large swaths of the edited articles (measurement problem, interpretations of quantum mechanics, Copenhagen interpretation, wave function collapse, and Schrödinger's cat) don't have inline citations or they're cited to pop-sci publications. Citing a very well-regarded physicist who worked directly on these topics would definitely improve the article, especially the sections that I've edited that generally didn't have inline citations before, particularly the section in wave function collapse that makes sweeping determinations without citations.
 * Academic papers and textbooks discussing the "irreversible process" Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr [ 13:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)] are available:
 * (this paper is cited by thousands of other papers)
 * This is what Teller is explaining in plain language for the lay person in the video.
 * (1) The video should not be regarded as an unreliable source because Teller is an established expert. (2) The quality of the video is higher than some of the pop-sci sources in the articles, and it is definitely better than not having sources at all. (3) The information can be cited further to the above peer-reviewed papers published in respected journals, as well as many others. HueSurname (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Teller is an established expert on nuclear physics, many-body quantum physics, and some other fields, but as far as I know he has never worked on foundations of quantum mechanics. If you have some scholarly work from him on the subject, that's fine, but an informal discussion just doesn't cut it. Everybody and their dog have an opinion about interpretations of quantum mechanics, we should definitely not include those in Wikipedia. Talk is cheap, work isn't.
 * Yes, there is plenty of stuff in Wikipedia that shouldn't be there, and plenty of stuff that isn't in Wikipedia that should be there. This will always be true, and is not an argument for including any particular content.
 * If you have actual sources supporting your changes, well great, cite those instead, we don't need to argue about Teller. Note though that Heisenberg is explicitly about having wavefunction collapse in his interpretation, claiming otherwise is just bizarre. Tercer (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If I attribute the "irreversible process" Copenhagen interpretation to Teller and Bohr using the references above, will you have any objections? HueSurname (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your first source seems rather obscure, but the other two are completely kosher. If they support your claim it's fine. I'm skeptical about the attribution to Teller, though. Tercer (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll attribute it to Bohr alone. HueSurname (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Collecting a few more widely-cited sources:
 * The argument I was making is that the reference improves the article relative to its current state, in case this ever comes up again. HueSurname (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll attribute it to Bohr alone. HueSurname (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Collecting a few more widely-cited sources:
 * The argument I was making is that the reference improves the article relative to its current state, in case this ever comes up again. HueSurname (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The argument I was making is that the reference improves the article relative to its current state, in case this ever comes up again. HueSurname (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The argument I was making is that the reference improves the article relative to its current state, in case this ever comes up again. HueSurname (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The argument I was making is that the reference improves the article relative to its current state, in case this ever comes up again. HueSurname (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The argument I was making is that the reference improves the article relative to its current state, in case this ever comes up again. HueSurname (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Bohr interpretation
I really don't understand how are you using Bell's paper to support the idea that "the Bohr interpretation" doesn't have a collapse. Bell is quoting Landau and Lifshitz, not Bohr, and Landau and Lifshitz do explicitly have a collapse. Tercer (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We have no complete treatment by Bohr. We have Bell's and  and Stenholm's.
 * Bell says that LL is perhaps the nearest to Bohr, Stenholm says that Rosenfeld accepted irreversibility as a formal representation of Bohr's ideas.
 * Outside of that, we have Bohr in Essays 1958-1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge:
 * So we have Bohr "irreversibility inherent in the very concept of observation" [through a physical process of "observation"] and Bell saying LL's formal treatment is the closest to Bohr which is "ambiguous in principle" about the collapse, and Stenholm, presenting his "considerably simplified" version, pointing to Rosenfeld, pointing to Bohr, ending with "we have reached the point where "the quantum mechanical description of the process is effectively equivalent with the classical description", as the quote from Bohr at the end of the previous section states."
 * So there's the Bell account of the Landau-Lifshitz account of Bohr's interpretation, and Stenholm's account of Rosenfeld's account of Bohr's interpretation. If you want me to cut out the middlemen I'm sure I could do that. HueSurname (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rosenfeld (1966) describing Bohr's interpretation:
 * So according to Rosenfeld who is describing Bohr's ideas, "in complete harmony Bohr's ideas", there's no collapse, only a process that gradually leads to the reduction of the state. HueSurname (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Guess who?
 * "for the observer himself does not produce the transition; but it cannot be moved back to a time when the compound system was still separate from the external world, because such an assumption would not be compatible with the validity of quantum mechanics for the closed system." Incredible. HueSurname (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your sources do not support at all your assertion. It is not acceptable to say that Bell's account of Landau and Lifshitz's interpretation amounts to Bohr's interpretation. If it were, then Bohr's interpretation would have a collapse. In Bohr's own writing there's nothing to indicate that the "irreversible amplification" doesn't happen through collapse. Rosenfeld's account describes vanilla collapse; "reduction of the state" is just a synonym. Tercer (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll quote Zinkernagel 2016 which extensively quotes Bohr:
 * If the collapse is not (or not necessarily) a physical process then at least some Copenhagen interpretations (like Bohr's) do not (or do not necessarily) pose a collapse.
 * (As as aside I emphasized Heisenberg quote because the Wikipedia articles I edited had said that Heisenberg posed observer-induced collapse or some physical significance to to an anthropic observer. These articles I feel also mischaracterize Wheeler's anthropic principle, but that's another story...)
 * - that's a weird claim. Bohr in his writings never mentions collapse (Zinkernagel 2016, Howard 2004, Faye 2008) but because he doesn't indicate that there's not a collapse then there is a collapse? That's not sound reasoning.
 * Anyway I'm more or less satisfied with the state of my current additions to Wikipedia, and maybe later I'll get to fixing or removing all the unreferenced claims and the claims referenced to pop-sci sources in the articles I've added references to. HueSurname (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll quote Zinkernagel 2016 which extensively quotes Bohr:
 * If the collapse is not (or not necessarily) a physical process then at least some Copenhagen interpretations (like Bohr's) do not (or do not necessarily) pose a collapse.
 * (As as aside I emphasized Heisenberg quote because the Wikipedia articles I edited had said that Heisenberg posed observer-induced collapse or some physical significance to to an anthropic observer. These articles I feel also mischaracterize Wheeler's anthropic principle, but that's another story...)
 * - that's a weird claim. Bohr in his writings never mentions collapse (Zinkernagel 2016, Howard 2004, Faye 2008) but because he doesn't indicate that there's not a collapse then there is a collapse? That's not sound reasoning.
 * Anyway I'm more or less satisfied with the state of my current additions to Wikipedia, and maybe later I'll get to fixing or removing all the unreferenced claims and the claims referenced to pop-sci sources in the articles I've added references to. HueSurname (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway I'm more or less satisfied with the state of my current additions to Wikipedia, and maybe later I'll get to fixing or removing all the unreferenced claims and the claims referenced to pop-sci sources in the articles I've added references to. HueSurname (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RƎE logo REE Automotive LTD.svg
Thanks for uploading File:RƎE logo REE Automotive LTD.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: REE Automotive has been accepted
 REE Automotive, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=REE_Automotive help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ANI discussion with you
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 2A02:2149:8BDB:B00:E9A0:470:B1A5:6F1E (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me. Why not simply use the article's talk page to discuss this edit from more than a year ago? HueSurname (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)