Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum physics demo


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Shimeru (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Quantum physics demo

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is a how-to describing how to demonstrate quantum physics to yourself. It has no references (besides one for a quote from Wikiquote). If anything, I believe it should be merged into a Quantum Physics article, such as Basic concepts of quantum mechanics. (Note: This is my first time doing an AFD, so if I did something wrong, please let me know. Thanks.)  VerballyInsane t &#124; c 21:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge I can't help feeling that this is encyclopedic and would be appropriate somewhere, but I agree that on its own it's a bit of a "how to" and doesn't warrant its own article as described - if it was a notable experiment with a descriptive name, that might be different, but it's hard to know what to search for. (If it is merged, mind, I'm not really sure where it should go) -- Boing!   said Zebedee  22:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I've changed by !vote after reading the debunking reference, which certainly seems plausible (and probably convincing), which means it clearly isn't even a trustworthy demonstration -- Boing!   said Zebedee  18:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note that the page contains an external link that debunks the whole idea. This is where references come in useful. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh yes, so it does - I've changed my !vote to Delete. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  18:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete While it might be an interesting demo, it is in no way encyclopedic. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. My understanding (as very much an interested layman in this field) is that the very fact of reading this message on your computer, even without any polarizing filters, is a demonstration of quantum physics, as many of the components involved in getting this message from Wikipedia's servers to your brain depend on quantum effects for their operation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The book referenced, Johnjoe McFadden, Quantum Evolution, pp 177–182 W. W. Norton & Company; 2000, contains an extensive discussion of the topic. The polarized light demo is taught in many university physics classes. The reference to a classical physics explanation is again a standard technique in physics classes. Quantum physics and classical physics explanations of the same phenomena are placed side by side in the Socratic Method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crunkcar (talk • contribs) 02:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Would you happen to know if the experiment had a specific name? It would make it easier to find information about it.  VerballyInsane t &#124; c 03:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Professor McFadden calls it the "Sunglasses Experiment" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crunkcar (talk • contribs) 04:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I note the ref to the book has a web link, but that's broken. And I don't understand the remark "Quantum physics and classical physics explanations of the same phenomena are placed side by side in the Socratic Method." If polarisation can be understood classically, as the "debunking" ref suggests, than the experiment doesn't actually demonstrate quantum physics. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The polarizer quantum physics demonstration is regarded as sufficiently interesting to have been posted on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZudziPffS9E and also on Yahoo Answers http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091125133831AAr2Vju —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crunkcar (talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's interesting enough. I'd like to see more refs, though, including to books on polarisation that confirm that the phenomenon can't be understood classically. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's the point - it can be understood classically, as one of the refs describes, so it's probably nothing to do with quantum physics -- Boing!   said Zebedee  09:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm very much afraid that you're right (although I wish I'd paid more attention in physics class way back when). -- Radagast 3 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:Verifiability and content issues noted above, and some very dubious statements, such as "This non-intuitiveness illustrates the quantum axiom that there is no objective, outside world with a reality independent of observation and measurement." I always thought that quantum theory asserted the objective existence of the wave function. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Your criticism is valid. The statement was too broad and has now been corrected. Crunkcar (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The Sunglasses experiment truly cannot be understood classically. You would have to believe that passage of light through a polarizer lens or plastic or glass twists the polarization vector of the photons. I included the debunking reference purely for objectivity and balance.Crunkcar (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we know that passage of light through a polarizer does not twist the polarization vector of the photons? (Genuine question - I really don't know) -- Boing!   said Zebedee  12:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The external links section currently includes links to YouTube, Yahoo! Answers, and two forums.  Verbally Insane  23:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I feel like sitting in a school class when reading this article. I'm almost certain polarization of LCD light is addressed in other articles, and this article is merely describing an experiment. You may add a note on this effect on respective articles, but a how-to or lecture or anything alike is certainly not appropriate for an encyclopedia. You may move this over to wikischool - oh wait, there is no such; dunno if wikiversity will accept that text. Nageh (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.