Talk:Quantum 1/f noise

message: Should this be merged with 1/f noise?  It doesn't explain its own relevance very well. — Omegatron 00:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a good idea, unless someone can make this less of an advert for the main author of the topic. Boud (talk)
This is a very sorry confession, but I'm probably the world's leading expert on 1/f noise. OK, stupid way to waste a lifetime. Anyway "Quantum 1/f noise" is 100% pure bullshit. It really should be removed from Wikipedia altogether. And no, I don't usually express opinions with that degree of forcefulness and certainty. (User: Mbweissman)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbweissman (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

text: This really looks like the expression of a personal conflict... 
Could pros or cons please give references of international journals articles verifying or not the theory by comparison with experiments?
Is there any other ab-initio theory of 1/f noise out there to explain the results of A. van der Ziel et al. which are supposed to confirm the "quantum theory of 1/f noise"?
Concerning objection 1. above, could Handel's approach be a reasonable approximation of the more elaborate density matrix approach?
Handel's ideas have been applied to many different kinds of systems. Could it be possible that they are reasonable approximations for some of these applications and not others? 
Concerning objection 2. above, it seems to me that there is also later developments of Handel's theory dealing with coherent quantum 1/f noise as opposed to conventional quantum 1/f noise.
Is your remark also valid for this "coherent" part of the theory?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.225.249.135 (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

text: An incorrect theory that misuses the rules of quantum physics stays wrong independently from experiments.
165.91.12.152 (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

text: if only wikipedia were concerned with facts more than sources.VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge discussion 

message: Shifted from article: The answers are available to all interested in this historical aspect, from handel -at- umsl -dot- edu.
Boud (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  contact of presumably the main author, shifted from article to here 

message: I've just put a stub-template to the page. Clearly, the page doesn't have any useful content. For a reader, all the mentioned information could be moved to a section about 'Quantum 1/f noise history' (although I'm not sure that section is needed at all as it seems rather a defence from those supporting the idea of Quantum 1/f noise), but most important, somebody should describe what this theory is actually about. Another paragraph might be helpful where people could point out the main reasons to support and/or reject the theory. AdamSiska (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead dances all around a definition without ever giving one. Robert K S (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Quantum 1/f noise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.umsl.edu/~handel.
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080331132833/http://staff.science.uva.nl:80/~nieuwenh/ to http://staff.science.uva.nl/~nieuwenh/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified