User talk:Patrick0Moran

User:Patrick0Moran/Archive1

A question (I don't even know if this is the right way of doing things...)
Hi, I am not sure if this is the right way of contacting you on Wikipedia, but I am guessing it might work, so here goes. I have been looking at the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser page, and noticed you giving some knowledgeable responses on the talk-page; I don't actually know if they were knowledgeable, but at least they look as if they are ;-) The bit I was wondering about concerns directly detecting an interference pattern in the top (simple) half of the experimental setup, if the lower half is removed (i.e. no explicit detector is used on the entangled idler particles). If you look at the talk-page of the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser page, under the heading "Questions on slightly changed setup", you will see my question in more detail there. I am looking for a paper on an experiment where the interference pattern of entangled particles is directly visible. If you know of such a paper, I would be very grateful if you could give me the reference, or perhaps direct me to someone that might have it! I will have a look at this page under this heading from time to time to see if you have made a response. --89.253.76.71 (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll give you an "off the top" response here and then check the talk page when I have more time. The problem is that once you have set up the entangled electrons, you can't just cut them out of the total picture. You can change the lower half, but you can't "remove" the lower half. The reason is that the entangled photons that are not the ones that go to the top part will still go somewhere, and that somewhere is the de facto bottom part. You can do a couple of very simple things with the bottom half. You can put a snarly collection of carbon nano-tube muffler stuffer stuff directly in the path of those nether-wending photons, pretty surely determining that they will be "detected" before their entangled twins get to do anything. You can also put a mirror in their path and direct them into interstellar space where it might take them the remaining lifetime of the universe to find something to absorb them.


 * Originally, you would not expect to see any photons heading into the upper limb of the experiment interfering with themselves because there is neither a double-slit barrier nor any device using beam splitters. You would not expect to see interference in the upper limb supposing that a nano-snarl light trap had detected almost all of the lower-limb photons before they had gone into any beam-splitter or double-slit type of device. It is guesswork to say this because you never want to say never, but if you sent an immense number of photons off into interstellar space, the chances of any appreciable number of them lucking out and running into a galactic double-slot machine a few gazillion light years away are so slim that you might not see a single instance in your lifetime. On top of that, your upper-limb detection device would be totally swamped with photons that had not been forced to interfere with themselves, plus any number of photons that got into the apparatus without ever having been entangled. I mis-remembered which experimental apparatus was involved. There is a double-slit apparatus. It acts on both sets of entangled twin photons. So the "default" position for the upper limb is that there ought to be an interference except for the fact that various things can happen to the other set of entangled twins. If the lower limb is functionally equivalent to the upper limb, then there will be an interference pattern observed in both of them. However, if the lower limb does anything that makes all or most of the entangled photons get absorbed ("detected") before they can interfere with themselves, then you won't get an interference pattern in the upper limb either.P0M (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would feel lots more confident about thinking about these things if I had access to a well provisioned and adequately funded physics lab. I do not. However, I think I can be fairly confident that if, when a lab happened to be setting up the experimental device of two limbs, somebody had started the lasers, etc. going while lining up all the parts of the upper limb and before the entangled photons going the other way were affected by beam-splitters, etc. (simply because they weren't there yet), and if the experimenters started seeing a nice interference pattern appear on the wall behind where the detection device was planned to go, then people would be so astounded to see a sort of ex nihilo interference pattern that they would call everybody's attention to this virtually unthinkable result. As far as I know, nothing like that has happened. I doubt that it is because everybody has been careful not to turn on the lasers, etc., before the whole apparatus is ready to go. there was no interference pattern in the upper limb even if they put just a regular CCD in the D0 position, the experimenters might have been puzzled for a moment. Then they would have asked whether the photons going along the downward paths from PS had any great likelihood of interfering with each other. If they found that they were getting a couple of bright spots of light somewhere, indicating that they had "which path" information for all or most of the photons in the lower limb, then they would feel that they had a comprehensible explanation for their not getting an interference pattern in the upper limb. If they found that they were getting a nice interference fringe on a wall or some other incidental target in the lower limb, but there was no interference fringe in the upper limb, then they would have a real mystery. If they were curious and the photons coming out of PS were not getting superimposed on the same detection screen, then they could duplicate the arrangement in the upper limb in the lower limb so that the two paths coming out of PS would converge nicely and the psi-functions emerging from the two regions of PS would be superimposed and would form a nice set of interference fringes. At that point there should be interference phenomena in the upper limb too.
 * If I were doing this experiment, then being as inexperienced as I am I would establish a baseline by starting without the BBO. I would make sure that I could get a nice interference pattern along two limbs. That way I would know that there were no problems with the apparatus or basic alignment. Then I would put the BBO and the Glan-Thompson prism into the apparatus. The upper limb and the lower limb being the same setup, whatever was showing up in the upper limb should be showing up in the lower limb. Only then would I start doing things to the two paths that were originally going into PS. If I put PS back in, diverging the two paths considerably, I would expect to find two widely separated spots of light on the wall someplace, and I would expect that the interference pattern in the upper limb would disappear. If it didn't then my idea of common-sense reality would be reassured, but my ideas about what I thought I knew about quantum physics would be deeply shaken. I would admit that I was a total amateur going into a physics lab that I didn't know enough about, and I would start a long series of observations to try to figure out where my imagination had gotten out of hand.


 * After looking at the talk page for the article, I think that all of the above is, in a sense, irrelevant to your real question. You seem to be concerned with the muddying effect of having the patterns at D1 and D2 being out of phase with each other in such a way that the high amplitude regions of one fringe pattern "fill in" the low amplitude regions of the other fringe pattern, the result being a broad band of light with no observable fringes. In an idealized experiment, you could put a piece of photographic paper at D1 and another at D2 and see interference patterns recorded on the film. You could then position them appropriately to see how they would add up if they were in the right phase relationship. It isn't as though there are no fringes being produced in reality. The problem in the experimental setup is that the way they did the beam splitters and mirrors they introduced a phase difference. They have taken it out electronically, but I think they could have flipped the phase relationships one more time on one or the other path and thus have brought them together in the physical apparatus. Actually, there is another problem because of all the stray photons zipping around. If I remember correctly, the BBO sometimes passes photons through without down-frequencing and creating entangled photons. On top of that, there may be stray light from ambient illumination in the lab. So for practical purposes it makes good sense to use the coincidence counter and just ignore all the stray photons. P0M (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"I am looking for a paper on an experiment where the interference pattern of entangled particles is directly visible. " -- What would happen if you started out with the laser of the experiment described in this article, and you kept the BBO and Glan-Thompson prism, but then you duplicated the top limb as the bottom limb. There being no double-slit anywhere, you would get, basically, two spots of light, one for D0 and one for the new detector that is its stand-in in the bottom limb. Then what would happen if you put a double-slit apparatus in either the upper or the lower limb? Both members of each pair of entangled photons would have a simple psi-function before one or the other hit the double-slit. What would happen to the entangled psi-functions after one of them hit a double slit? Is it the case that when the identical psi-function that resides at two positions in space hits the double-slit, then the identical psi-function that proceeds in two directions thereafter is a pair of psi-functions that are going to interfere and thus demonstrate interference? Or is it the case that when the identical psi-function that resides at two positions in space does not hit the double-slit, then the identical psi-function that proceeds in two directions thereafter is not a pair of psi-functions because nothing has happened to cut it (as the double-slit apparatus would), and there is nothing to interfere with itself and therefore no potential for interference phenomena to be manifested? In other words, which experience in the two limbs takes precedence? Does the splitting in one limb split the psi-function in the other limb despite nothing having happened to it at that locality? Or does the non-splitting in the other limb heal the split in the psi-function in the other limb despite nothing additional having been done to it after it went through the double-slit apparatus?

If you set up such an experiment, then you would presumably get the same result in both limbs. Either you would get two interference patterns, or you would get two spots. You would in either case explain what happened as an example of entanglement. If you got an interference pattern in the limb with the double-slit apparatus, but you got a single spot of light in the other limb, then you would conclude that entanglement was not taking place or was not the kind of phenomenon that you thought it was.

I don't know whether it is right or not, since the whole idea of causality has been getting pretty mushy, but the idea seems to be that if you have two entangled photons and you "do something" to one of them, then some change is manifested in the form of a "correlation" even though you have not "done anything" to the entangled twin. If you have not "done anything" to one of the entangled photons, then you cannot expect to have "done something" to the entangled twin. But you can't mess with Einstein and causality. So you can't speak of "doing something" to an entangled photon by "doing something" to its twin.

If you look at this problem from a stretched mind point of view, there is only one psi-function and regardless of what it looks like from a human-in-space-time point of view, if you do anything to this psi-function "as though it were located in this position, or as though it were located in that position," you change it. If you do nothing to this psi-function, then you don't change it. When you have one psi-function and you put it through a double-slit apparatus, then you change it in all its "locations," and so you should expect it to exhibit interference phenomena in all its "locations."

I'll look around to see whether anybody has made a "Y" configuration experiment and put a polarizer in one fork, or a double-slit in one fork, or something of that sort.P0M (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

See: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Walborn_EtAl_QuantumEraser.svg P0M (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This article may be what you want: http://www.scribd.com/doc/58640003/Walborn However, I don't see any indication that they have actually looked at whether an interference pattern is delivered to Dp, their upper-limb detector. P0M (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi P0M, and thank you for your thoughtful reply! The reason all this has me confused is that I was under the impression that entangled particles will never exhibit an interference pattern in themselves, or at least not in the double-slit-before-BBO setup. To detect any form of interference pattern, I thought you are actually forced to use something like a coincidence counter between a detector on the idler particle and the detector on the "pattern-limb". Basically, I was under the impression that once you had two entangled particles, it is no longer possible to detect the "wave-like" or "particle-like" (or any other quantum state) on one of the entangled particles, without correlating its state with the other entangled particle. You propose a setup where the there are two identical entangled limbs, and say that there should be a directly visible interference pattern on both limbs in that setup. I was under the impression that both limbs in that setup would only be even-intensity blobs. I did have a look at the Walborn paper, but if you carefully read the descriptions of the interference patterns in figures 2 and 4, you will note that they are coincidence counts. Also on page 3: "The interference pattern is recovered through the coincidence detection of photons s and p."


 * The real interest I have is if you know of a (probably very basic, perhaps referenced in a text-book) paper where such an interference pattern (or even just a slit-pattern) is directly detected on entangled particles, by intensity, not by coincidence. It doesn't really have to be a delayed-choice experiment or quantum eraser experiment, just an experiment with entangled particles. You would probably still need to have a coincidence counter in the experiment, just to verify that the setup really gives entangled particles, but once that calibration is done, the coincidence counter should be able to be ignored, and the pattern should be directly detectable by intensity. --89.253.76.71 (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you had a device that would produce entangled photons and only entangled photons, and would so one at a time, then you could set up some photographic negatives as two detectors, and you could determine whether just one set of double-slits would result in the production of an interference pattern on both sheets of film, or maybe would not produce an interference pattern on either sheet of film. You would have to have a perfectly light-free room to run your experiment in.


 * You could google for articles on such an experiment. I assume that if one had been done and had received a bit of publicity then we would likely have heard of it here, but who knows? Lacking that, I think that the experiment that the article covers does just what you want, but does it in such a way that it does four possible experiments all at the same time.



If you put your eye where D3 is, you would see only the photons corresponding to the psi-function that, as split into two parts by the double-slit, bounced off of BSa. The other part of that same psi-function has gone off to D4, so for this one entangled photon that came out of the BBO, you will either get half of the psi-function and it will "show up" as a scintillation on your retina, or you will get nothing because the other half has gone somewhere else. There is only one path that leads to your eye that is standing in for D3. If you stand in for D4, then the same thing will happen. You will either get nothing or you will get one photon smack in the middle of where the "straight line" trajectory of the photon will place it. Presumably (and I'll come back to this presumption in a minute) if your twin stood at D0 then s/he would in each of these cases shout out, "dead center hit!" If you stood in for D1 or D2 then, if the rate of single photons being fired out of our expensive single-shot laser was fast enough, persistence of vision would let you see a typical Young experiment type of interference pattern. And your twin would see a mish-mash because his two patterns would coalesce into one, and also the center would be brighter than for a regular Young type interference pattern. That being said, you would nevertheless be seeing an interference pattern formed by entangled photons whenever you stood in for either D1 or D2. If you really wanted to peel apart the four layers that your twin was seeing, the we would need to re-introduce the coincidence counter and use it to sort photons into four groups at Dundefined.

As to the "presumption" mentioned above, note that by D0 there is a little vertical line and an "x." That stuff is there to indicate that the experimenters have put the detector on a sort of trolley operated by a stepping motor. Evidently a small detector sensitive enough to pick up individual photons was all they could build or afford to build, so they made this one detector look at a single "line" at a time, and moved it along to its next position after a certain amount of time had elapsed. So it operates rather like a scanner that turns your hand drawing into a JPG image. If only single photons were coming through in the upper limb of the experiment, and they were not forming any kind of extended pattern, then there would be no point of looking anywhere but the center of the straight-line trajectory coming out of the laser, BBO, etc. and into the upper limb of the experiment. So they had to have been getting an extended pattern, and the only extended pattern they would not have thought worthy of special mention would have been the typical Young-s interference pattern.

If you want an experiment that does not involve a coincidence counter, then I suspect that you will have to wait for an experimental apparatus that spits out only entangled photons.P0M (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, so I will simply have to wait until someone figures out a way of creating only entangled particles. Probably not impossible at some point, seeing as they managed to make devices that spit out individual photons long ago! Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.76.71 (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement...
Thanks! - You and Chris Howard have succeeded (in changing my mind and returning). Thanks for standing up for me in numerous places during that "Hublolly" incident I was not aware of - its very kind of you! Maschen (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. Welcome back!P0M (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A favor I want to ask
Hi Pat, it was all thanks to you that I could get used to learning on Wikipedia. I have read over a thousands articles and learned how to answer most of my own questions. Now I want to ask you one more favor in order to pick up the pace. I hope you can check your email inbox before the end of this month. Thank you Pat.Mastertek (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Frank Weston Sears
Hello. I noticed that you mentioned "the original MIT series written by Francis Weston Sears" on the Intro to QM talk page. I know that you linked to a book on Amazon.com, however, since you mentioned an "MIT series" I was wondering if this set of books on Goodreads is the series to which you are referring? I am referring to the titles on this page minus the "University Physics" that you did not appreciate way back when. Also, I just noticed a "University Physics. Volume 3", so is this also a series of some sort? Steve Quinn (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The original series is as follows. All are on your link.


 * Mechanics, Heat, and Sound
 * Optics
 * Thermodynamics, Kinetic Theory, and Statistical Thermodynamics (revision and expansion of An Introduction to Thermodynamics, Kinetic Theory, and Statistical Mechanics) -- I have the original. If only Sears did the revision I would go for the revision.
 * Introduction to the Theory of Relativity -- This book actually has a co-author whose name escapes me at the moment.


 * This series is so good that it is still spawning new textbooks today.


 * I think University Physics is what we used to call Sears and Zemanski. Don't buy it. (It would be a one-volume compilation of the classical physics titles.) P0M (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details
Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as: are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Oxyopes sp.JPG
 * File:NASA Cavalli-Sforza.gif
 * File:Population 1 sample.png
 * File:Population 2 sample.png
 * File:Races of Bees.png
 * File:Aysha velox.png
 * File:Chopstick fangs.png

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You probably want to add your say
DP attempted to perform a preemptive strike against me by reporting me to the edit warring noticeboard.

He didn't succeed in getting me blocked, of course, but you may wish to visit the page to add your comments. They could be useful in the future. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Done.P0M (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Retrocausality
I'm having a difficult time with the Retrocausality section. I haven't yet found any review articles that treat the subject broadly or with any pretense at objectivity. Every paper on this subject, even those purporting be reviews, presents a strongly distinct POV, and I can't rely on my BS detection instincts.

Any suggestions? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Stigmatella aurantiaca


 * I just got started on that problem myself. I'm looking at an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia. (Personally, I think their entries can be of variable quality, but I'm willing to have a look. Just got started on it a minute ago.)


 * The whole issue blows my mind. One thing seems to be clear. There is what may be regarded as a single event that occurs across both "wings" of the experiment on account of there being entangled photons. The signal photon is under no restrictions due to any hobbles being imposed upon it in its wing of the experiment. If there were no BBO and ordinary photons were heading up the dual paths to that detector then they would always do what photons do in the basic double-slit device. However, throw the second wing into the experiment and the signal photon is compelled to behave as if it were sometimes prevented from interfering with itself -- no, let me rephrase that -- the signal photon is sometimes prevented from interfering with itself. Nothing is up there to keep it from interfering with itself, but it does about half of the time. The idea is that the signal photons event and the idler photons event are the same event except for space-time differences. As though that were not quirky enough, now consider what would happen if somebody in Kim's lab knocked a hole in the roof and directed the photons that originally would have arrived at detector one out into space. Not only that, but by luck they put the photon on a path that never in the entire history of the universe is ever going to find a convenient electron cruising around an atomic nucleus, boost that electron into a higher orbit, and end its existence. In that case, I suspect that as far as the Universe is concerned not only did a photon not land on a dust mote a million years later, but no photon left the laser. There is a certain kind of ironic sense of justice in that conclusion.


 * A more disturbing conclusion comes looming when we ask what happens if the photon hits something a million years after the experimenter activates the laser in the lab. A photon will appear in D0 after the appropriate time gap of almost no time at all, but nothing will appear in D2,3,4. That's fine with me. What bothers me is that a million years of events go by during which the position of the earth changes, a star moves into the path of the oncoming photon and moves beyond that path, a bunch of other things happen, and finally a mote of star dust comes into the path of the photon just at the right moment to get hit. If that happens, then perhaps a message gets sent backwards through time to inform that entangled twin that it is right for it to manifest itself as part of a diffraction pattern pretty much dead center of the screen. That way of thinking about things does not make me think of myself as a clockwork orange mechanically getting peeled by another clockwork orange. I can still support my idea that it really matters whether I choose to lead a better life tomorrow or choose to do something stupid like pulling a cougar's tail. However, if I think about the "decision" of how the signal photon is to be manifested as being made in the present in Kim's newly ventilated lab on the basis of a decision table that is entirely outside of time (like a dice game in which all the dice throws had been made and recorded beforehand and recorded in a secret book only known by the casino employee who announced the result of dice throws as people put down their bets stage by stage) then that would seem to imply that somehow the decision to hit that mote of dust was made outside of time and yet in knowledge of or in response to that future event, and thinking that seems to imply that the whole Universe is tied in with an event that must turn out as it is... as it is what? As it is predicted to do? As it is known before the fact to be going to do? It sounds very much like the old idea of the mind of God that stands outside of time and knows before I am born that I will choose to sin and therefore be doomed to an infinity of torture in hell. Somehow I'd like to feel that I have a choice in the matter, a real choice.


 * To return to staid reason for a moment, it would appear that anything that has to do with time is going to have a large component of subjectivity involved in it since the best minds have been unable to decide whether time is a quasi-thing, a stream in which one might swim backwards (as a positron instead of an electron perhaps, as an anti-matter person rather than a regular person) or whether it is merely the side effect of probability, the effects of entropy, the unlikelihood that Humpty-Dumpty's parts would all rebound from the stone-littered pasture and form him whole once more. If time is the ratcheting "forward" of events then temporal events might be one thing and entanglement phenomena might not be involved with the ratcheting, the arrow of time, etc. I guess that is o.k., but I am only guessing. There is no what I know of to take these things into the lab, at least not in any way beyond things like the Kim experiment.


 * I'm sure all of this has not been helpful to you. It may have been helpful to me in directing me to look for certain things. I'll see whether I can find more critiques on-line. P0M (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I just took a disappointing run through all of the other commentary.


 * "Proposal for a quantum delayed-choice experiment" may be useful. I think it is right, but only because it agrees with my prejudices at this moment. I need to study it carefully.


 * As Greenstein and Zajonc point out in Quantum Challenge, it is essential to look at the entire event. I wonder whether it is relevant that different inertial frames have their own idea of what comes first and what comes second. Anyway, the arrival of one entangled photon at D0 is part of the same event in which the other entangled photon shows up at Dn. A coincidence counter with a delay-line in it to match a nearby-received twin with its remote-received twin will not ping until the twin that is far away in space or time actuates its end of the mechanism. P0M (talk) 06:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed a lot of cruft from the retrocausality discussion. We have a number of key citations to fill in. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to have been led to the Gaasbeek paper. Also the Ionicioiu and Terno paper. I think there is something in Quantum Challenge to cover the "citation needed" marker. Anything else that has not been marked? P0M (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not marked, but the "what if" scenario in Problems with retrocausality extending DCQE to a year smacks of original research.


 * Also the statement "Retrocausality has not won over more than a handful of partisans as a rational explanation of the findings of delayed choice experiments" was my interpretation of a statement by Cthugha82 ("This is at least the typical contemporary position..."). I'm sure nobody has actually polled researchers in the field, and so my statement also smacks of original research based on Cthugha82's words. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the draft is approaching the point where we need to get Cthugha82's take on it. What do you think? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether I could find a specific reference in regard to stretching the Kim experiment. On the other hand, discussions on entanglement include statements that indicate there is no time limit on how far apart correspondences can be discovered. Schrödinger was originally hopeful that entanglement would just dwindle away as two entangled systems drifted apart, but he later gave that idea up. So if there is no upper limit... Practically, I think we could put a target and a clock on Mars, but that destination if only several light minutes away. At one point Cramer was planning to do experiments involving long lengths of light guides. Cthugha82 may know something we could cite.


 * I doubt that anybody has done a survey or even taken a random sample of opinion among physicists. Maybe there is a bibliography somewhere that would help us by listing prominent articles for and against. It would be fair to say something like: "The following 8 articles question the idea of retrocausality, but only 3 articles supporting the idea have been found."


 * I think it would be a good idea to have Cthugha82 take a look. P0M (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Another major swoop through the draft
I did another major swoop through the draft, mostly to simplify overly complex sentences that I let slide the first time through, but also a lot of simple copyediting. Please check over to make sure that I haven't adversely changed their intended meanings. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orbital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=596123278 your edit] to John Archibald Wheeler may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/haunted-by-his-brother-he-revolutionized-physics Biographical stories

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glan prism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Guess what?
DP is inserting his say in Talk:Counterfactual definiteness and Talk:Mach–Zehnder interferometer, saying that everything is perfectly explained by classical wave arguments. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Counterfactual definiteness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Entanglement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Introduction to QM
Hello, I notice you have recently been involved in the above article. I have proposed a complete rewrite on the talk page, and have done a rewrite on my sandbox. Please give your opinion? Mcplums (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Races of Bees.png
Thank you for uploading File:Races of Bees.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Global account
Hi Patrick0Moran! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 01:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Spider bite
You and Doc James seem to have an interest in "spider bite" wiki. I disagree with the lead in. I have science as my forte but then thought it could help to have culutre as well. so something like this " Spider bites have been implicated in many ailments through history. Notably wild dancing in the Middle Ages, death between the Great Wars, and skin ulcers in the 21st Century. Although the fear of spiders may be a European trait ref Davey, G. C. (1994). The" disgusting" spider: The role of disease and illness in the perpetuation of fear of spiders. Society and Animals, 2(1), 17-25. Scientific advancement in Industrial Revolution and later put doubt into medical consequences of spider bites. Commonly held beleifs about spider bites were debunked as folktale and myth.  California physician Emile Bogen cemented the consequences of black widow envenomation, or arachnidism,  in the 20's ref Bogen, E. (1926). Arachnidism: a study in spider poisoning. Journal of the American Medical Association, 86(25), 1894-1896. Several other types of arachnidism have been described since, however, folktale and myth still dominate the perception of spider bites. Importantly, most arthropod bites are not from spiders, no spider bite is typically fatal to humans and most skin wounds are not from a spider bite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moderntarantula (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Mandarin vs Other listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mandarin vs Other. Since you had some involvement with the Mandarin vs Other redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Skin shade map.gif listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Skin shade map.gif, has been listed at Files for discussion. See also The mass request on commons of which it is a part. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. AlwaysUnite (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Present-day proponents of subordinating horses by force listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Present-day proponents of subordinating horses by force. Since you had some involvement with the Present-day proponents of subordinating horses by force redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:African Genetics (primal).jpg
Thank you for uploading File:African Genetics (primal).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION : This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

File:PrayingMantissClassx.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PrayingMantissClassx.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Taekwondo
Hello PatrickoMoran, I read in an old article on Taekwondo where you made a comment about Mr. Charles Bewley. I used to train with him back in the 1974 time-frame in Colorado. RobertRGoldsworthy (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)Robert GoldsworthyRobertRGoldsworthy (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Chopstick fangs.png


The file File:Chopstick fangs.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned image for many years. The image that was digitally modified still exists and this image could be recreated in the future if there was an encyclopedic need to do so. Until there is an encyclopedic need, it does not seem necessary to store the image."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ★ Bigr   Tex  21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

EPR Paradox
Hi P0M, on 6 December 2011 you on the EPR Paradox article, the wording of which survives to this day! I'm having a little trouble parsing it, and hoped you might be able to clarify. "EPR tried to set up a paradox to question the range of true application of Quantum Mechanics".

I think there is a small grammatical issue here, but I can't decide if it should actually be "the range of true applications of Quantum Mechanics", or something else. Or perhaps I'm misreading! As you noted at the time, this stuff takes some digesting. But I'm also stuck on what the word "application" means here. If it said "...the range of interpretations..." I would be merrily on my way to the next sentence, and eventually (hopefully) able to get back to watching Avengers: Endgame. But now I'm wondering what Quantum Mechanics is being applied to, here. Modeling reality? I hope you see this and can shed some light. Thank you! 68.197.169.26 (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Taste (software) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Taste (software) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Taste (software) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Imcdc (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zhi


The article Zhi has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "WP:NOTDICT, is just a transliteration of a chinese character."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &#32;- car chasm (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Introduction to eigenstates


The article Introduction to eigenstates has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "eigenstates are too technical for readers seeking an introduction article."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)