User talk:Porphyro

WP Poetry and The Canterbury Tales task force
As someone who is listed as a participant for WikiProject Poetry, I hope you will be interested to learn of an attempt to revive the WP and alongside this the creation of task force to improve coverage of The Canterbury Tales. We are currently looking for participants to help set up the basics. Please get involved if you can, and we can hopefully revive this important project within Wikipedia! Many thanks, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fortifying wikiquanta
Hi, I seek volunteers for this. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I can see your point but I'm having a hard time imagining what the articles you say should be written should actually look like! A vast swathe of quantum mechanical articles have sources for experimental verifications of the predictions of quantum theory. Porphyro (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To your first phrase: Yes; indeed, I feel the same.


 * To your second phrase: "verifications of the predictions", sure; but are they about entangled states?


 * The feature of both attacks (on affine spaces and quantum mechanics) is that the attacker is not stupid. He likes the theory! He objects to a careless overuse of the good theory (as he understands it).


 * The "quantum attacker" likes the wave function and all that. His red line is, an entangled state of a composite system whose subsystems are addressed separately. This case was indeed not experimentally available to the founding fathers. But now it is available; its "verifications of the predictions" are mentioned mostly in our articles on quantum information, and these are hardly accessible to non-experts, and do not emphasize this aspect: not only technological progress, but also verification of entanglement theory.


 * Now, back to your first phrase: maybe, a new section in the "Quantum information science" article? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In order to "centralize" the discussion I've copied this to my talk page; hope you do not object. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quantum contextuality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Bell. 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) 11:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

quantum nonlocality
Dear Porphyro, I agree with your claim that the first sentence defining quantum nonlocality might contradict the option of quantum nonlocality without entanglement. The correct solution, in my eyes, is to correct the first sentence to enable more general quantum nonlocality, as defined in the paper quantum nonlocality without entanglement. Please also invite Tsirel (Boris Tsirelson) to suggest modifications in this Talk page of yours. I hope it is OK with you that I opened a new section. I am a new Wikipedian and hence I do not know where is the optimal place to have this discussion between the three of us. Tal Mor (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Tal, thanks for taking the time to get in touch. Opening a new section on the talk page was the correct thing to do in this circumstance, so please do not think you have breached any sort of wikipedia etiquette! In general, the best place for this will be in the talk page for the quantum nonlocality article which is here. I will start off a discussion there and alert Boris. Porphyro (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note please that it might be very difficult and time consuming to reach an agreed definition of "quantum nonlocality". A better approach might be to change the title, so that it fits the current definition, e.g. "quantum nonlocality of a single quantum state". Then it is natural to put back my change from last week, but only into the section on nonlocality and entanglement (a section that MAYBE should become an article on its own). Best regards. Tal Mor (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Fenugreek shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Necurs botnet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spam. 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) 10:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello
My reset was in good faith. I reset the blanking because you should not just blank entire sections just because they are bad. On Wikipedia we try to improve our content, not to just do away with below-par material. It was not as hopeless as some WP:TNT situations have been. groig (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. On wikipedia, WP:BOLD edits are to be encouraged, and this section is a perfect example of WP:JUNK. Any attempt at a section rewrite here will amount to mostly blanking what is currently written. I think all the salvageable content is duplicated elsewhere on the page. Porphyro (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Explaining
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quantum nonlocality
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Quantum nonlocality you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Doctorg -- Doctorg (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Quantum nonlocality
The article Quantum nonlocality you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Quantum nonlocality for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Doctorg -- Doctorg (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Your removal of De Broglie's double solution theory from Interpretations of quantum mechanics
Hi,

In de Broglie-Bohm theory there is only the wave-function wave. From the Interpretations of quantum mechanics page:

"Particles, which always have positions, are guided by the wavefunction."

In de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves. The wavefunction is a mathematical construct only and doesn't physically exist. It is the associated physical wave in the subquantic medium which guides the particle.

So, the difference is:

De Broglie-Bohm (pilot-wave) theory: The particle is guided by the wavefunction wave (which is also referred to as the pilot-wave). - Theory has a single wave.

De Broglie's double solution theory: The particle is guided by the physical wave in the subquantic medium. The wavefunction is a mathematical construct only. - Theory has two waves.

De Broglie realized the pilot-wave couldn't be physically real as it exists in fictitious configuration space. It was then that he abandoned pilot-wave theory and went back to his original double solution theory.

Mikec755 (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Mikec755

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!

follow-up question on local realism
still trying to understand: "A more modern take on local realism is to define realism in the sense philosophers use it: that there is an actual state of reality, independent of our observations. This state does not have to assign values to measurable quantities in a deterministic way."

So in many-worlds, there's the wavefunction of the universe, which has deterministic & unitary evolution following the Schrodinger equation, which implies (by decoherence theory) that there are many non-interacting branches of the wavefunction, and then the other axiom is that the branch we happen to find ourselves in is consistent with the Born rule. So if I believe all that (...and I do...), does it make me a realist (by the "modern" definition)? I just said "there's the wavefunction of the universe that deterministically evolves", and that sounds kinda realist ... but the wavefunction in QFT evolves in a causal within-lightcone way, so that definitely local.

In a Bell / EPR situation, with space-like-separated Alice and Bob, who are both many-worlders, Alice will model Bob's measurement as creating a superposition of two Bobs entangled with the two measurement results (at least until she intersects the future light cone of the measurement, and then the spreading decoherence ensures that Alice will find herself in a world with just one of the Bobs, though she won't know which Bob it is until Bob's message arrives a bit later). Modeling two Bobs I guess doesn't sound so realistic, since you said "an actual state of reality" in the singular. Can you comment? Mainly just trying to understand the terminology, thanks in advance for your time. --Steve (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that's a really good question. I'll try to break down the position as best I can. I'm also very sympathetic to the Many-Worlds viewpoint, for what it's worth, but I think many who would use what I referred to as the more modern interpretation of Local Realism are not. In "Vanilla" many worlds, the nonlocal component is kinematic; the wavefunction can be seen as nonlocal entity which mediates interactions between systems and enforces correlations (by changing how different branches of the worlds interact with each other) that are outside the scope of what can be achieved with a locally realistic theory. It is realist, because it makes a definite claim that the state of the universe exists, and it is fully described by the universal wavefunction and described relatively for us by the branch we inhabit.


 * However! It is actually possible to make versions of Many-Worlds that are kinematically local too. I don't think anyone thinks these are good models for the universe: they have memory issues and require disgustingly large ontological state spaces. These issues are not eased or resolved by moving to a QFT picture. They are, however, both "local" and "realist" (in the sense that I used the word realist), sidestepping Bell's theorem by lack of being able to counterfactually reason. I don't have the citation right now but I can find it for you tomorrow if you are interested. This illustrates that if we wish to be totally accurate, given the interpretation I was applying, one should add "in single-world interpretations". I think because of the lack of popularity of MWI people often miss this off.


 * I am not an expert in QFT, but my understanding is that the framework highlights the kind of locality that is present within the MWI and makes it mathematically solid in a way that's not really possible within the nonrelativistic quantum mechanics framework. I think it is a shame that these words are used in different ways by different communities, and while I don't think the approach I'm espousing is perfect, I think it does capture the important fact that the kind of violation of local realism that quantum mechanics achieves is more interesting (and more nonclassical) than just mandating an intrinsic randomness for physical properties. Porphyro (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! Very interesting. One more thing: Maybe I should be embarrassed to ask this, but what do you mean by "kinematic" here? --Steve (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have probably been clearer! By "Kinematic" here, I mean to do with the state and space of states, rather than the dynamics of how that state evolves. Porphyro (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No response to GA nomination
Porphyro, I started a review of Quantum nonlocality 11 days ago and listed some problems that needed fixing, but no one has responded. If I don't hear anything soon I will have to fail it. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Local interest magazines and sourcing
Just to be sure I looked into the magazine, Sonoma Magazine, and started an article on it (as per Notability (media) one can use journalism awards as a basis of notability). It's a local interest magazine that covers food and wine in the Napa Valley and Sonoma Valley areas of California: as this food/wine stuff is a softball topic I don't see why an American local interest magazine wouldn't be sufficient for comparing/contrasting two different kinds of Indian-style food. (the magazine had covered Indian-style food in the Sonoma/Napa areas for that article) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You're probably right that my edit summary was a bit dismissive, but I genuinely don't think that the claim should be in the article. Regardless of the respectability of the Sonoma magazine, it's effectively reporting the opinion of a single chef in the US on the difference between two dishes primarily associated with the UK and India. In addition, we have multiple sources in the article stating that there is not really a universally-adhered to definition of Chicken Tikka Masala, so any claim that there is a specific difference between it and another dish should be viewed with significant suspicion. Regarding it being my job to rewrite the section to be intelligible to a British audience- I'm afraid this is impossible as the current language is genuinely unintelligible to me: I have literally no idea what the claim that it uses a "non-gravy sauce" is supposed to mean, and the original article doesn't enlighten me. If the claim is that there are meat juices in the tikka massala sauce, this does not seem to be backed up by the rest of the article. In any case, per WP:EngVar this is an article that strongly leans towards British interest and therefore the article should be written in British English. Would you be happy if we removed the strong claim of the difference between butter chicken and chicken tikka, but left the (imo, correct) claim that they are very similar dishes with the same sourcing? I have also copied this to the chicken tikka talk page which seems a more natural home for the discussion. Porphyro (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding this to the discussion! Replying on the page (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)