User talk:Kpvats

Dark Matter
You need to supply references for that section you created, otherwise it can't be accepted. Cheers, Huritisho 21:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Huritisho, This article itself starts with "Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter". Isn't dark matter a speculation in order to explain straight speed curve of spiral galaxy? Its particle has not been detected. Only available proof of its existence is gravitational lensing. There has been no other progress on the topic for half century since it was discovered. The text I added, explains both - the speed curve, and gravitational lensing. So, why I need a reference for a speculative article? They say dark matter is like a Christmas tree to which light bulbs (stars) are tied. We all know that tree has to be more firm than the lights it supports. Collision less dark matter can not keep stars in place because it itself can not be in place due to its nature. What reference I need to provide, I really do not understand when all the work is based upon two phenomena - speed curve of spiral galaxies, and gravitational lensing. Doesn't space falls into a blackhole? If it does, that is my reference - In this case, it swirls, and swirling can explain speed curve and gravitational lensing. If you say space does not fall into a black hole, please say so and I will respond.

October 2015
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Dark matter, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. clpo13(talk) 02:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Clpo, This article itself starts with "Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter". Isn't dark matter a speculation in order to explain straight speed curve of spiral galaxy? Its particle has not been detected. Only available proof of its existence is gravitational lensing. There has been no other progress on the topic for half century since it was discovered. The text I added, explains both - the speed curve, and gravitational lensing. So, why I need a reference for a speculative article? They say dark matter is like a Christmas tree to which light bulbs (stars) are tied. We all know that tree has to be more firm than the lights it supports. Collision less dark matter can not keep stars in place because it itself can not be in place due to its nature. What reference I need to provide, I really do not understand when all the work is based upon two phenomena - speed curve of spiral galaxies, and gravitational lensing. Doesn't space falls into a blackhole? If it does, that is my reference - In this case, it swirls, and swirling can explain speed curve and gravitational lensing. If you say space does not fall into a black hole, please say so and I will respond.


 * That's original research and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Dark matter may be speculation, but the article is backed up by reliable sources describing the history and nature of the research into dark matter. So, according to the policies of Wikipedia, any information must be backed up by sources, no matter what the subject. clpo13(talk) 04:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, Thanks you Clpo.

Dark matter and Double-slit experiment
Your edits to both of these articles seem to be based on your own personal interpretation. Material in Wikipedia needs to be verifiably supported by what's written in reliable sources, and shouldn't be based on original research or opinions. --Amble (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "rm" means remove, and "OR" refers to original research. --Amble (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Dark matter - edit was concluded earlier today. Double Slit - OR - I am not saying anything new or original. It is already in this article. So, no source/reference needed. I am only drawing attention to the distinction between two kinds of observations - One that is done on the background screen which is a wave pattern, and one that is done before the background screen which causes the wave pattern to disappear. If this distinction is not important/material, please let me know why. If it is not well written or misplaced, please suggest changes.


 * I'm sorry to have to say this, but the text you added contains basic misunderstandings that won't be helped by rewriting or relocating it. It also doesn't matter what I think is important or material.  What's needed is a strong basis in what reliable sources say about the subject. --Amble (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OK Thank you Amble. May I please know what that basic misunderstanding is. And if what you think does not matter, then did a source tell you so? Yes, there is a difference between the two observers - One stops the electrons and other does not. That would render the distinction irrelevant as far as uncertainty principle is concerned. If the double slit experiment is nothing but all about uncertainty principle, then please ask a source and let me know. I thought it was also about how reality presents itself depending upon if we were observing or not.


 * Frankly, none of what you wrote is a correct understanding of quantum mechanics. If you think otherwise, it's up to you to provide a source supporting what you wrote. --Amble (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like religious fielding. No wonder there has been no progress in understanding of either of the topics (gravity/dark matter and double slit) for ever. Not blaming you, not even defending my understanding, it is just my frustration that how any ideas are received on such eternally stagnant topics. This kind of attitude can be justified for topics that are somewhat progressing. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.211.3 (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * We're not trying to publish new ideas. We're an encyclopedia.  Progress in science happens in the scientific literature, not here. --Amble (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Well that is what I am trying to say, the progress has not happened .. Why we need those sources then. It becomes a catch 22 no progress - no source - no ideas - no progress. Thanks for your time again. It is not you vs I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.211.3 (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Who says progress hasn't happened? I see a lot of progress, but it happens in the scientific literature, not here.  What happens here is building the world's greatest encyclopedia and making it available to everyone everywhere for free.  Are you familiar with current scientific publications on foundations of quantum mechanics, gravitation, or dark matter?  If not, how do you know whether or not progress is being made?  --Amble (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Dark matter particle has not been detected. Double slit experiment has not been resolved. Not that I look at the empty glass, but there has been no break through progress. If you consider people writing papers to get their PHD as progress, then yes, progress happens every year. I do not have to know about the literature, when it happens, everyone will know. These days, there is not much difference between scientific lit and internet, and News in terms of what happens. Yes you need to know the lit if you want to go into deep mathematical how. Every thing worthy of knowing is covered by media and I stay on top of the media in these fields. Who would not remember FTL neutrinos:) I realize you are doing a great work by building and supporting free encyclopedia for everyone everywhere world wide. And I understand this is not the place for this discussion. Let us end this discussion as you are right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.211.3 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Amble, Could you please read below scenario and check if it makes any sense or what I am missing here - This is regarging passing information faster than light.

Person A and Person B take one each, of two enangled electrons in opposite direction from each other travelling at one tength of c. This way, they will be one light year away in 5 years. Before the two people take the electrons two different ways, they have an agreement as below - 1. Person A will measure the spin of his electron at a fixed time exactly 5 years from the time they depart. 2. Person A will take action X if it turns out to be a top spin and action Y if the spin turns out to be down spin. 3. Person B will measure the spin of his electron exactly at 5 years and one second. (assuming immediate spooky action) 4. As soon as B measures the spin, he will know what action was taken by A and can take his action accordingly.

This setup enables the information to be conveyed within a second across a distance of one light year.

Even though there are prior agreements in this scenario, the scenario would not be possible without quantum entanglement and its immediate spooky action.

Has this scenario been considered as per your information? Does it count as passing information faster than light? Thanks Krishan

your edits to "Quantum entanglement"
Hi. Did you ever see in any encyclopedia such phrases as "Please let me know if it is ok to add this section" or "Please provide some reason/comments for removing"?? Probably you know that each article has its talk page, in other words, discussion page (indeed, this page is the talk page to your nonexistent userpage). Do you understand the distinction between an article and discussions about the article? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I want to know the reason why the edit is not suitable?


 * Why not use the right place for the discussion? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, It is confusing, I can not find what is right place for discussion. Could you please start a discussion and send me the link so I can continue there?


 * But I just did so! Click on my phrase "the right place for the discussion" above; it is clickable (blue), isn't it?
 * And by the way, plesse sign your messages (on talk pages) by fout tildas: ~ . Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)