Talk:Aaron D. O'Connell

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aaron D. O'Connell article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

I believe this page is a case of a WP:BLP1E. O'Connell's experiment is truly beautiful, but it is well-presented in the the Quantum Machine article. I don't think that this article contributes anything significant beyond what is already presented there. Perhaps this article should be merged/redirected/deleted, barring further works of general interest by the subject? RagnarOlafson (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a serious question about the use of the word "macroscopic" in the discussion. While the device is itself macroscopic in that it can be seen by the human eye, the motion itself is not visible and therefore the word is misleading. The motion is a vibration within the object which is not visible and therefore not macroscopic. I will change it back if no one makes a credible case in the next few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iheartquantumvibrators (talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All references to the size of the mechanical resonator are accurate. The main thrust of O'Connell's experiment was to show that quantum behavior applies to the motion of objects large enough to be seen with the naked eye. The brief description in question currently has the exact phrasing "motional state of a macroscopic mechanical resonator," which is a clear description of a macroscopic object in a motional state and in no way should be interpreted as an object of any size undergoing macroscopic movement. For example, if the phrase in question were instead "motional state of a cheese danish" it would be incorrect to assume that this meant "cheese motion of a danish". The current wording of the article is noncontentious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.65.229 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page represents one of the worst abuses of Wikipedia I have seen. I am not a wikipedia person, but someone who is needs to do something about this. This site is pure self-promotion way out of proportion to the level of contribution of the individual involved. Help! Pages like this undermine the whole Wikipedia project and also reflect poorly on science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.103.14 (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In his Ted Talks presentation of his experiment, Aaron O'Connell says, "It is only AT PRECISE TIMES when they [the atoms] align [during the vibration]. THE REST OF THE TIME, they are delocalized. That means that every atom is in two different places AT THE SAME TIME." If the atoms "align" at "precise times," and if the same atoms are "delocalized" the "rest of the time," then every atom is in TWO different places (aligned and delocalized) at TWO different times (at precise times and the rest of the time). Therefore, Aaron's conclusion that "every atom is in TWO different places AT THE SAME TIME" is an obviously FALSE conclusion (a lie). The only thing that Aaron's experiment proves to me is that people (who accept Aaron's incorrect conclusion) are easily duped. 7Jim7 (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. O'Connell does not appear to be active in the physics or quantum physics community any longer. According to his Linkedin account, he's now involved in social media websites. This page is self-promotion, and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freyir (talk • contribs) 03:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Q in the Light of O'Connell Qubit Resonator"?

Does the so-called "Quantum Machine" or the coupling of a mechanical resonator, similar to a tiny springboard, and a qubit invalidates Penrose's Interpretation? Any follow-up would be welcome.

Measurement paradox invalidated as he describes his "superposition" object

He first states in his lame ted talk video that he excludes all light heat and energy from the system in order to get it into a superposition. Then he says he "touched" it. Touching introduces energy. Next problem, how did he or anyone measure something without using heat, light or energy. This experiment is a lie. His experiment, by design, was a failure. He saw nothing but a stationary stick of metal. The end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.19.89 (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ref → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_machine