Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neutron gamma gamma

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. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutron gamma gamma

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

Looks like nonsense, waddles like nonsense, quacks like nonsense, e.g. "smaller photons", yin/yang symbol for neutron gamma-gamma illustrations ("Instant t + 4.4016x10-24 seconds"?). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a rambling assemblage of physics-related statements that don't really go anywhere. Each component of the information is better covered elsewhere and there doesn't seem to be anything worth salvaging. Praemonitus (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as rambling rubbish. At best OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete looks like someone's personal ramblings.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...what in the world is this?! Ansh6 6 6 04:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good-faith editor could think hard about an important area of modern physics, compile a dozen correct and referenced statements, with some more inferences and statements that are unclear, and fail to have an article which satisfies notability and verifiability. Maybe it could be a springboard to research and theory, but publishing original research and personal reflections is not the stated role of Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 04:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - incomprehensible nonsense. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently the article is a translation from Spanish using Google Translate. Alternative theories on neutron structure would possibly belong in our Neutron article (if they are fully referenced, of course). Dbfirs 16:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the author claimed on my talk page that this was a translation from the Spanish article, but actually the Spanish article was created after this one, by an editor using the same name, and it is just as rambling and unencyclopedic in Spanish. Edison (talk)
Delete - Reads like my seventh-grade physics textbook if seventh-grade me had been asked to write the textbook. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Desire to know, is insignificant compared willingness to understand.

MARCOS BUIRA PARDO (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your cooperation. Your views will be included into the global project. (Inside a photon, Neutron gamma gamma, Types of Black Holes, Universes and Cosmos .)

MARCOS BUIRA PARDO (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is some legitimate basis here - you can have a gamma particle with the mass of a neutron and gamma-gamma scattering does occur and has been used in things like searching for the Higgs. However, the description of the neutron as "an expression of fundamental constants" misses that the Ne/Nr/Nm numbers are all defined one in terms of the next. The mass itself seems arbitrary, unpredictable even by the author's original research. Because the neutron is not the only neutral boson that is no surprise! The idea that a pair of photons orbit one another, drawn together by different polarity of electric fields is, well, interesting, but I see no evidence this produces an attractive force of remotely appropriate dimension, nor is the decay after 10 minutes explained. But all that is irrelevant because this is just not being supported by the sources - every one of them is some basic, basic reference not even a crackpot site that agrees with this. So sorry, but no, you can't publish your fun model here as an article. Wnt (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your opinion,(is a nice exposure , and you're the first person who 'understands' the 'model' ) let me a simple question. when a neutron star dies, expelling quarks , gamma or ....? MARCOS BUIRA PARDO (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure they do die, but if somehow you blasted one apart, well, as you see in neutron star, relatively little is quark-gluon plasma, and even that physicists can study in terms of the standard quark description. Presenting a neutron as a pair of photons ignores all of the mass characteristics and decays observed among the bosons. Now there is such a thing as photon-photon scattering, and if it is powerful enough I suppose it can generate neutrons along with other particles, but the way you present this doesn't make sense. Wnt (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most energetic manifestation observed in the universe is GRB ( gamma flash ),the death of neutron star .There is not explanation known, in nuclear reaction, capable of generating so much energy. the only explanation is the internal neutron fission , gamma photonsMARCOS BUIRA PARDO (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on gamma-ray burst gives what looks to me like a plausible explanation. Coming up with good ideas can be fun on a physics forums site, and you might be able to phrase some questions focused enough for the Refdesk to handle (though it's not quite as free-ranging a forum - there does have to be an answerable question). But you can't go straight to Wikipedia articles with this stuff. We cover things published in other sources, so called WP:reliable sources, not any thought anyone has. Please try to understand that, because if you don't, there are a lot of people on Wikipedia whose mission in life seems to be to be nasty to people whose editing they see as a problem! Wnt (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutron as a pair of photons ignores all of the mass characteristics....Mass, energy and wavelength are the same thing, look differently. But it is a very good observationMARCOS BUIRA PARDO (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.