At the same time, Feynman was adamant that his path integrals were a method of calculation, not of "reality." The MWI, which was to some degree (maybe a huge degree) an outgrowth of reactions to Feynman's many discussions of how virtual particles "explored" every possible option, annoyed him greatly.

When I looked at my clock just now, for a short moment I thought I was losing my mind as it had been almost an hour later the last time I looked. Daylight saving time gets me every time.

@kaiser Rewarding trolls is not a good idea on any site. If you really want to keep it around, get 10k rep here so you can view it any time you want.

@DavidZ Nice

@TerryBollinger Yeah... His attitude confuses me a bit

@ACuriousMind So that is why I'm up at 7 AM on a Sunday!

@DavidZ and/or other mods: While randomly browsing the site, I stumbled into this question, and saw that the answer is nothing more than a copy+paste from Wikipedia. I left a comment asking Alfred to expand, and he replied (as you can see) by saying he will probably not update the answer anytime soon. Should I now flag the answer for being link-only, or is it better to let it be? I guess this is a case of technically correct vs. 'mildness' (?)

i agree, it is link only

It certainly is. Whether to act on it, that's the important question

@Danu : I haven't heard anything yet on arXiv trackbacks from Phys.SE. Note that MO.SE and TP.SE have it implemented independently.

@Qmechanic OK. I hope we can manage to get it done somehow!

(Hello empty room again, I have odd hours;

@ACuriousMind, I hope I'm right that we lose daylight savings time next weekend??)

I'm adding a competing answer right now, even thought the perfectly fine Wikipedia link-only answer has been accepted. I suspect that the underlying idea that vibrations in a net-neutral lattice create dipoles, and that dipoles can then attract, can be conveyed a bit more sharply...

Hi Terry!

@TerryBollinger This sounds quite alike how my condensed matter physics professor explained it to me

Although it's (of course) a gross oversimplification, this manages to capture the physics very well.

Wow, that's nice! Would you mind if I add that link to the answer I just did?

Or you could add a comment and link?

Your call -- I've got to take a (maybe long) break now. Again, cool illustration, that.

No, link it! No problem!

I'm sure Dr. Griessen won't mind ;D

hey, you have your own Wikipedia page!! :D

@TerryBollinger Uhh...Here in Germany it was this weekend, I don't know how it is for you

Is this on-topic? It's one of the weirder questions I've read in a while.

@Danu, thanks, I'll link it with a call out to both of you. Nice illustration, fits right in too.

Wikipedia, yes... though for that episode the richest man in world Bill Gates knew my name and was quite unhappy with me... or at least his top lawyers nearly went apoplectic. I'd do it again in a nanosecond. Flip side: massive, heart-felt kudos for Gates for helping Nigeria with containing Ebola, though.

@ACuriousMind, DST ends Nov 2 here, we always do it after Halloween to give the tykes more light when walking the streets in dark costumes. Works for me, driving near home is scary that night for fear of hitting little folk.

@ACuriousMind the ostrich flight question seems to me more-or-less as a physics question, even if pretty much a detailed elaboration of the obvious. It seems to me not really to be a question, though, as much as just that -- an elaboration of "ostriches can't fly because their wings are too small."

@TerryBollinger Ah, that makes sense, Halloween isn't a real event here, so we don't have to wait for that.

@TerryBollinger From Rod Vance's comment, it seems their kind of birds couldn't even fly if their wings were larger.

@ACuriousMind, I agree, that's where I think he added some interesting content. Maybe he should have just answered his own question. SE even encourages that, though I've not see it much in Physics.

My oldest son was born on Walpurgistnacht, April 30, which I think is the nearest equivalent there to the US celebration of Halloween? Only with a lot more beer and a lot less candy?... :)

@TerryBollinger Did you already know Griessen? Or did you just look him up

(Arg, must leave again. @AlfredCentauri, I hope you will forgive my audacity for re-answering your already excellent answer to a 1.5 year old question... it was just such a tasty one, and I frankly sharpened up my own concept of Cooper pair dynamics by researching it.)

@Danu that's not a link-only answer. There is a very substantial quote block there that keeps it from being link-only. It's properly attributed and quoted, so I see nothing wrong with that answer.

I've commented as such on the answer.

@DavidZ Thanks for your reply. This clears up how link-only should be interpreted.

For future reference: "link-only" is our code name for answers which would provide no useful content whatsoever if the targets of external links were to disappear. Blockquoting the relevant portion of the link target is actually one good step toward converting a link-only answer into a good answer.

OK, understood

ahh stupid strikethrough formatting :-/

Anyway @Danu if this is something a lot of people are confused by, it might be a good idea to make a meta post on the subject.

I had always interpreted it as 'no original contribution'

based on my personal convictions on what constitutes a good answer

...but as I said, I don't feel strongly about it