- 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW; there is no chance that we will keep this original research essay. Sandstein 09:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quantum realism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Incoherent article which appears to be about a fringe theory but doesn't even clearly state what the theory is. The term is indeed used sometimes by reputable physicists but that's not what this article is about. It seems to require a rethink of General Relativity and a "re-formulating" of the strong and weak forces. In other words rewriting some slightly important parts of the universe. None of the references mention the theory. Fails WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, WP:RS. andy (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article creator seems to be using this to promote his own views, and whether his views are accurate or not, they don't appear to have received significant coverage from reliable 3rd party sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refutation
- what is labeled 'incoherent' is actually an attempt to be brief.. it's not the same thing.
- 'fringe theory' is addressed below..
- the theory IS stated quite clearly; the complaint comes from a philosopher (from their user page) - NOT a scientist - they don't have the qualifications to judge.
- the references cited are conventional theorists with open minds (something andy is clearly NOT). i'm actually in communication with them.. if andy had corresponded with them, he/she'd realize the references were for the authors - not exactly for the associated texts..
- 2nd objection above: i'm not really promoting 'my' ideas which will be made clear below..
- please visit the article here: when you have time..
Why the article is not fringe physics, a gentleman's science
Watching Neil Turok on Horizon or reading Stephen Hawking, for instance in The Nature of Space and Time, i'm reminded: these are refined gentlemen with balanced, deep, and intricate perspectives. If we could emulate them, i believe there'd be less strife and struggle - and - more stimulating insightful discussions. Not that they agree on everything, or even that i agree with them, but simply the gentlemanly respect they show others combined with open-mindedness - these are unequivocally admirable qualities. i've written to both of them and i guarantee you: they're willing to think about the following concepts..
Wikipedia is about to delete 'quantum realism' - my second attempt over several years to encourage humanity to ask fundamental questions about spacetime and energy. It doesn't distress me; i expected it as convention's attempt to perserve: job security, investment in research, and most importantly - public perception of their adequacy. For instance, if it was proven they've been pursing a 'dead end' / blind alley with the Standard Model, if the prime assumptions of the Standard Model are actually incorrect, there'd be a considerable amount of embarrassment on their side. They'd realize that for about 100 years, they were getting paid to confirm a theory that was essentially incorrect.
Wikipedia's label of my article was 'fringe', but the label is inappropriate at best. i'm actually extremely conservative in my veiwpoints as we shall see .. i propose some 'radically conservative' veiwpoints: 1. spacetime/time is infinitely elastic - nothing special happens behind an event-horizon
- calling a black-hole a 'singularity' is a misnomer
- there's no abrupt change in spacetime near a black-hole
- neutronium is the most dense material possible in our universe
2. spacetime/time has finite elasticity
- simply implies a finite force/stress is required to stretch/deform/strain spacetime/time
- this does not contradict point 1 (please study elasticity to understand this point)
3. gravitational waves seem impossible in our universe
- please watch the video entitled: Cosmic Journeys: The Largest Black Holes in the Universe
- on YouTube; this illustrates the destructive force of gravitational waves
- if spacetime allowed gravitational waves to propagate, our solar system would have been
- destroyed by them
4. spacetime is explicitly 3D+1
- there are no hidden dimensions to space as string theory suggests
- time is unidirectional/causal
5. what we think of as 'curved spacetime' is actually only curved time
- time curves into space - reinforcing point 4
6. spacetime is continuous
- spacetime is not discrete; there would be 'hard evidence' of discrete spacetime/time
7. energy/photons propagate in only one way:
- a transverse electromagnetic wave oscillating out-of-phase with temporal curvature
8. the notion of balanced curvature requires conservation
- the concept of the antiphoton, with negative temporal curvature, is 'born'/required
- 'coincidentally', they explain electromagnetism from a quantum realism standpoint
9. the concept of the impedance of space/time is absolutely required in this framework
- engineers require it to analyze/design electromagnetic devices; it's a practical concern
- physicists cannot ignore it as trivial/meaningless/irrelevant
Many of these concepts have been around in excess of 100 years. Allow me to repeat that.
Many of these concepts have been around in excess of 100 years.
Not just been around - but put to practical use for that much time..
Does that make me fringe? Or conservative?
Conservative is not fringe; conservative is conservative.
.. Convention is the speculative party:
- multiple dimensions
- discrete spacetime
- non-locality
- virtual exchange
- inherent randomness
- zero-point energy
- inflation / unrealistic physics
- ...
The list seems endless on convention's part - to explain reality without the Prime Cause.
Who's fringe? Convention or me?&Delta (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as incoherent OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- A definition of 'incoherent' available online:
- in·co·her·ent/ˌinkōˈhi(ə)rənt/Adjective
- 1. (of spoken or written language) Expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.
- 2. (of a person) Unable to speak intelligibly.
Please forgive the brief presentation of 'the theory' if it was incomprehensible/confusing/unclear/unintelligible; i will make my best attempt to correct this. Also please understand that sometimes - an idea is labeled 'unintelligible' because the readers don't have the background to understand. i ask that any further 'delete vote' please also state their qualifications to judge theoretical physics ideas - otherwise, it makes them questionable on validity.&Delta (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if we've been unclear, but for Wikipedia to have an article on a subject it must meet the General notability guideline. Whether your views are true or not doesn't really matter in terms of this discussion, we have articles on both true an false ideas (i.e. Gravity and Flat Earth). However, Wikipedia requires that a certain subject receive outside attention before having an article on it. Qrsdogg (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- dear quentin,
the theory has received outside attention:
Howard Georgi at Harvard University
his email is: [suppressed for privacy]
please feel free to contact him at your earliest convenience, sam&Delta (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies if I'm misunderstanding the physics here (I was an English major) but it appears to me that your article falls under the original synthesis prohibition. Other scholars may have published information that is related to your idea, but unless they're connected by a different published source we can't combine them to reach a conclusion (no matter how valid said conclusion may be). Qrsdogg (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- dear quentin,
i sincerely appreciate the (likely unintended) complement implied by your most recent objection - original synthesis/research
however, at least a partial synthesis 'has been around' as a kind of 'undercurrent' in modern physics ever since Einstein objected to Bohr's primary thesis: (paraphrased) God plays dice
in Stephen Hawking's The Nature of Space and Time, Mr. Hawking comes to a point in his discussion: "not only that God does play dice, but that He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can’t be seen" (p19)
so Mr. Hawking would seem to agree with Mr. Bohr
however, i've been attempting to contact Mr. Hawking about this very article's proposed deletion..
i'm NOT asking him to endorse the theory..
i simply asked him to take a public stand: "it's possible" or "it's impossible" - one or the other
considering his historical position in physics, i'd encourage Wikipedia editors to refrain from further deletion attempts - if Mr. Hawking decides to 'weigh in' on this discussion
of course, if Mr. Hawking decides "it's impossible" and publicly declares such, please feel free to delete the article in question
please allow him reasonable time to do so (his assistant, Sam Blackburn, may comment in Mr. Hawking's stead)
.. one final remark about the purpose of any encyclopedia: just as important as 'comprehensive knowledge' is 'stimulating inquiry' ("asking questions")
science does not make progress unless we ask questions .. sometimes, 'the right' questions must be asked in order to make any progress..
what this means is .. sometimes in the history of science, there were some who dared to asked the right questions at the right time
.. with non-detection of Higgs and gravitational waves 'looming in the near future', we are literally forced to reconsider things previously dismissed
this is the 'unfortunate' (and very exciting) reality of our situation..&Delta (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: As a general rule you don't have to be a subject specialist to take part in a discussion about an article. As it happens I read mathematics alongside my Philosophy degree, my wife has a science degree, my daughter is at Cambridge taking a science degree, my father in law is a scientist, some of my friends are scientists and I work in a science-oriented industry. But that's not my basis for objecting to the article, it's simple rules like WP:RS and WP:OR that apply across the board to all articles. As for being fringe, well the article says that the subject is "unconventional", "requires... attention" and has "developmental issues" but WP:FRINGE says in no uncertain terms that "While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community (such as plate tectonics), it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections. If the status of a given idea changes, then Wikipedia changes to reflect that change. Wikipedia primarily focuses on the state of knowledge today." The status of this particular idea today is that it is largely ignored and not fully developed (i.e. half-baked). andy (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- dearest andy, i wish you would have put forward this argument from the beginning .. the honesty and straightforwardness of your position is Compelling
in all honesty, i don't wish to violate Wikipedia standards
but the question of scientific integrity and general human curiosity - demand me to rebut
if you examine all the editor objections of my article - makes one immediately ask the question - who's threatened by this?
how much server space is actually required for such an article?
not very much.
.. the incessant attacks on me and the article makes one wonder - what's the motivation for such attacks?
Wikipedia standards?
.. or perhaps it's something else..
i suggest an autonomous arbiter - neutral party - and hence my suggestion for Mr. Hawking
your objection is sound - and i respect it. period.
but there's also the issue of scientific fairness / even-handedness
.. this section here - is not about defending any particular position - it's about the unbiased nature of scientific inquiry
if we truly admire an unbiased perspective, this framework must be allowed fair 'airplay' for general/professional consumption
that's the bottom line.&Delta (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This quantum bullshittism should stop as WP:OR rambling. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All original research + personal essay. Mathsci (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A definition of original research can be found on Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your new theory. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:14, 17 July 2011 (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.