posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 07:52 PM
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Then do us all a favor and post a dictionary on here
In my experience, as long as the wikipedia article doesn't have the disclaimer at the top
such as "may contain original research...Needs additional citations" and so forth, the articles on physics are pretty good explanations for
There is even an article on quantum state
which the OP mentioned but didn't link to.
Another nice feature of wiki are the disambiguation pages. An example of a word that has a specific meaning in physics is "work". Search that in
Wikipedia and you get this disambiguation page:
The specific definition in physics is clearly marked and even links to further description. So the resource is there, it's up to you to use it. While
I wouldn't flame someone for using "work" in some sense other than its physics use, I would politely explain it has a specific meaning to a
However when the topic is "quantum" something, I think it is helpful to note that there is lots of woo being promoted by slapping the word "quantum"
in front of something by people that apparently don't even understand quantum mechanics (this is a general observation, and not a reference to
dominicus). They rely on a gullible audience that doesn't understand quantum mechanics either, so it's one of those "red flag" words that can have a
high woo factor associated with it depending on the source. "Frequency" is another "red flag" word that woos seem to like.
Nothing wrong with using "quantum" or "frequency" correctly, but it does help to be aware of the fact that these words (and a few others) are used (or
should I say "abused"?) to promote woo, so when I see them, I read carefully, as should anyone who wants to separate fact from fiction.
29-11-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification