User talk:Jeffrey Boyd

Welcome!

Hello, Jeffrey Boyd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Lewis Earl Lewis, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! LAA Fan '' 18:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Lewis Earl Lewis
A tag has been placed on Lewis Earl Lewis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. LAA Fan '' 18:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Theory of Elementary Waves for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Theory of Elementary Waves is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Theory of Elementary Waves until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RL0919 (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

/////////////////////////////////// Objection to proposed deletion of this page on "Theory of Elementary Waves":

I am the original author. This is my response to the proposal from Wikipedia that this web page be deleted. I object and believe that I can convince Wikipedia to change it's mind. There are two issues: first the significance of the topic (Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW)) and second the paucity of solid references to support this webpage.

On the issue of significance, anyone who believes there is no problem with Quantum Mechanics (QM) is not well informed. Einstein spent the last decades of his life trying to find the problem. It is called "quantum weirdness" because even scholars devoted to QM find it "weird." Some senior editors of Wikipedia, including members of the QM board of advisers to Wikipedia are known to be opposed to TEW and have made efforts to squash it elsewhere in the WEB. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks," Hamlet said. Why would QM experts be so interested in squashing this dissent? One possible answer is that QM "weirdness" is weird.

There have been many previous attempts to "fix" QM, and they have failed for the simple reason that they accept wave-particle duality. Now the Theory of Elementary Waves comes up with a new idea that no one, not even Einstein, ever considered before, namely that wave-particle duality is wrong. Perhaps a new idea should be tolerated by Wikipedia. The nature of truly new ideas, the kind of ideas that upset the apple cart, is that it is hard to get them published in peer review journals. Articles Lewis Little and I have submitted to leading physics journals have been rejected with no comment at all, or with obscenities written in the margin, or with comments like, "this is absurd." Thus TEW is such a novel idea that we rarely are allowed to have access to an impartial peer review. For Wikipedia to then turn around and say that we don't have enough published support for TEW, is equivalent to saying, "Wikipedia is not open to new ideas that challenge the academic status quo." The fact is, if TEW were valid, then it would be highly significant and worthy of a TEW page.

The problem is that QM has mathematics that "works" and is consistent with experimental results, but QM is incapable of explaining what that mathematics means. The QM solutions are (1) develop a multitude of "interpretations" (see Michael Brooks, "Where the weird things are," New Scientist, (cover story) 209 (2796) January 22, 2011, pp. 30-33); or (2) adopt the "Copenhagen interpretation" -- which is to pay attention to the mathematics as if that was the only thing that was "real." The TEW proposes a new solution that never occurred to anyone before, namely a model that is so symmetrical with QM that it supports exactly the same mathematics. There is something called the "reciprocity theorem" that is relevant. Thus TEW has the advantage over QM that it has the same mathematics and it can also be explained in a way that the human mind is capable of understanding.

Let us now address the second issue: the paucity of published material. This is partly our fault. Lewis Little and I are distracted attending to other issues, such as making a living. Like most physicists, our daytime jobs are not in physics. In my spare time I am presenting TEW scholarly presentations to conventions of the American Physical Society (APS) four times per year, and physicists in the audience say things like, "How come I never heard this before? Are you going to get a Nobel Prize?" I am submitting scholarly articles to scholarly physics journals, and sooner or later an article will be published. Other TEW supporters are submitting articles to popular physics publications. New Classics Library has invited Lewis Little to write another book for them to publish; he is considering the possibility.

Meanwhile our research team is developing TEW to a more robust theory, but I can't prove that to Wikipedia's satisfaction because we have not yet published new aspects of the theory. These unpublished but currently discussed aspects of TEW are as follows: (1) There are five experiments in which TEW and QM predict different outcomes (of these five, two have been published and the results support TEW but contradict QM; the other three are experiments designed by us but not yet conducted). (2) In addition to elementary waves traveling in the opposite direction as particles, there is also a coaxial elementary wave traveling in the same direction as the particle (but we claim that wave-particle duality is still wrong); and that idea allows us to explain the Bell test experiments without "entanglement," as I will present to the APS in two upcoming conventions. This is NOT another "Bell loophole"; it render's Bell's theory irrelevant. (3) When the so-called "wave particle" is divided into two separate entities, it is unclear how many of its properties belong to the wave versus the particle. Our research team is currently developing a model for the hydrogen atom, based on the proposal that properties such as mass, electromagnetism and spin belong to the wave and not the particle. The particle's only intrinsic characteristic is that it hooks up with one particular kind of wave and not another. Given that there is so much activity in the arena of TEW, this is a theory about which more will soon be published. Wikipedia does not allow me to cite scholarly presentations to the APS as references supporting this TEW web page.

In summary, we have two requests of Wikipedia: 1. Give us another two years then revisit the question of deletion (by then more will be in print); 2. If the Wikipedia QM editorial board is proposing deletion of this web page, we request appeal to a higher authority inside Wikipedia. We know that there is such an appeal process internal to Wikipedia.


 * Thanks for taking the time to address the question of deletion, but I believe you have misunderstood some aspects of how Wikipedia works. First, Wikipedia does not have topic-specific editorial boards. There is just a community of volunteers. I have opened a community discussion about deleting the article. After sufficient time has elapsed for discussion (usually at least a week), an administrator will review the discussion and decide whether it supports keeping or deleting the article. (I happen to be an administrator, but since I am the one proposing deletion, I can't close the discussion in my own favor.) If you wish, the result could then be appealed to the deletion review forum, but the focus there is usually on procedural issues (for example, making sure that biased parties don't make the deletion decisions).


 * The main factor deciding for or against deletion is not whether the subject of the article is significant or whether the theory is true. It is whether it is widely discussed in third-party sources -- in Wikipedia parlance, whether it is "notable" due to coverage of it in "reliable sources". Wikipedia has many articles on ideas that are rejected by the mainstream (for example, cold fusion and Worlds in Collision), but which have been widely discussed in scholarly or popular sources. If you agree that TEW currently lacks for published third-party sources, then the appropriate course within Wikipedia policy is to delete the article for now. If at a later time (two years or whenever) there have been more articles, books, etc., discussing TEW, then at that time the article can be undeleted, or a new article could be written, based the availability of those future sources.


 * Since you seem to be unfamiliar with the details of the process, I want to point out that the most effective place to make arguments for keeping the article is at the discussion page about the deletion, not here or on the article's talk page. To avoid repetition, I will post a link to this conversation on the deletion discussion page and you can respond to me there if you wish. Fair warning: the participants there will probably respond better to brevity and a focus on whether TEW is "notable" per Wikipedia policy rather than on the merits of the theory itself. -- RL0919 (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

FAIR WARNING: IF YOU PRESENT YOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST DELETION HERE INSTEAD OF THE PROPER PLACE ]] YOUR ARGUMEENTS WILL NOT BE READ BY THE FOLKS WHO WILL MAKE THE DELETION DECISION! Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)