Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fractal cosmology


 * 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   keep. Cirt (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Fractal cosmology

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research synthesis. The only thing in this article that has been noticed by third parties were the attempts to measure the universe's fractal dimension which have been laid to rest in the last decade or so. That information can easily be discussed in the large scale structure article. The author draws together numerous disparate sources from the out-and-out crank to some relatively respectable ones. This isn't, however, an accurate, verifiable synthesis nor does "fractal cosmology" actually exist outside of this author's own webpages. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. If the large scale structure actually gave sources for its assertions, I might agree with the merger proposal. As it is, the Fractal cosmology article is much better sourced, although it definitely has balance issues that need to be resolved. looie496 (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  01:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Google Scholar pulls in 59 ref. It may not be the current trend within academia, but its in the public domain, and a good start point for Wiki folk. Vufors (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Large scale structure of the cosmos, omitting the vast swaths of original synthesis, anything referenced to Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals, and the unencyclopedic style. This leaves at most a section for a perfectly reasonable treatment. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not the only large scale structure of the Universe, but also the very "fine" structure of the Universe. Denis Tarasov (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment While we do see fractals all over the place (see, for instance, my forthcoming paper on the problem of post-sorting agglomeration in deposition of size-selected nanoparticles), this article, except for a brief off-topic digression, deals with a particular model of self-similarity on a cosmological length scale. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Large scale structure of the cosmos per Eldreft, nom. Verbal   chat  09:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * as on its own it fails the notability requirements and should be deleted. Verbal   chat  11:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Following the comment from the author of the article, there are huge WP:COI, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues that confirm my decision that this article should be deleted. Verbal   chat  16:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep AFD is not cleanup and should not be used to resolve content editing disputes. Note an earlier attempt by the nominator to redirect the article without proper discussion or consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * CW, you really need to AGF and stop attacking other editors. Verbal   chat  10:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tu quoque. The point here is what is to be done with the article and this nomination.  The earlier redirect and comments here show that the nominator thinks that the topic should exist on Wikipedia.  Deletion is therefore not appropriate and a merge proposal should be made instead.  This AFD should therefore be speedily closed as I indicated. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One should also avoid ill considered accusations. A neutral discussion of edit history in no way constitutes an attack. Dlabtot (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is no need to delete this article. Fractals, as applied to the large scale structure, represent a sound physical model that deserves a special article in Wikipedia. This is necessary to explain the problems and achievements of the fractal model of the universe to readers, which is difficult to accomplish in Large scale structure of the cosmos article without overburdening the latter with excessive details. I agree though that the article needs a cleanup. For instance, the last two sections should be removed, because they are just book reviews. However the article itself should stay. Ruslik (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well sourced, NPOV article on clearly notable topic (still notable even if not correct). Could do with some re-writing and maybe trimming, but AfD is not cleanup. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * As the primary author, I must remain neutral here but can offer additional info/insight, and redress inaccuracies in the above comments. I'll try to keep that tone, in this forum.  Let me know if I get too evangelistic (i.e. - on a soapbox).


 * I've been studying the relationship between fractals and cosmology for more than 20 years, but hesitated to make any related contributions on WikiPedia, for fear I'd be tempted to write about my own work. This I have not done.  I have steadfastly avoided references to any of my own papers, links to my website(s), etc.  The reason I chose to create the Fractal cosmology WikiPedia entry was finding out (through a web search) that the topic name was redirecting to "Infinite Hierarchal Nested Universes" which covered a lot of material this article does not, but seemed rather unscientific, or 'over the Fringe line.'  That is; it focused mainly on the views of those somewhat outside the world of established Science, and covered none of what work had been done by serious (or respected) researchers closer to the mainstream in their field.  This is what I attempted to document.


 * FYI; I think I got the topic name (or saw the term) Fractal cosmology on Max Tegmark's web-site. I believe his statement was "Fractal Cosmology is dead!" but the term had a nice ring to it, and I saw it as a topic that was gathering momentum.  My initial response was "Huh?".  But I digress.


 * I have begun filling in the references for papers cited with journal publication info, as many did appear in peer-reviewed journals.


 * Re: merge suggestion - I agree that the application of Fractals to Cosmology has been mainly in large-scale structure, but this is increasingly not the case, as progress is made in quantum gravity, theories of ultimate unification, etc. Understanding the structure of spacetime appears crucial to resolving some of these issues.  Moreover; dimensionality appears to be different at the microscale, in every flavor from String Theory/M-theory to Loop Quantum Gravity, Noncommutative Geometry, or Causal dynamical triangulation.  And this raises the question of handling the transition from the ultra-small to larger scales, and how this affects renormalization of forces.
 * More later, JonathanD (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. - To see most of what was in "Infinite Hierarchal..." which has since been deleted, go to the link for the pages translated from Russian, at the bottom of the article. - JonathanD (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, this is a huge WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violation, and this comment is from the writer of the article and apparently the progenitor of the theory presented... Verbal   chat  16:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ummm ... I am struggling to see how the conclusion "this is a huge WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violation" reasonably follows from the above comments by JonathanD. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Question. In the above it says any references to "Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals" should be omitted. Is there something wrong with that journal, or just these particular papers. ? (from, who forgot to sign it).
 * It's under the control of a "rogue editor", and publishes a substantial amount of utter gibberish. Some of the things it publishes are probably good -- maybe even most of them -- but unfortunately publication in that journal doesn't serve as a reliable indicator of validity. looie496 (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Cosmology covers the universe's evolution from its origin to its old-age or ending, and thus includes Physics from the ultra-small to the ultra-large scale domain.  It admits observations, but gives us little opportunity to experiment, as we can see neither the universe's inception nor its full extent in the laboratory.  Therefore what constitutes the empirical in Cosmology includes both Particle Physics and Astronomy, but is not limited to these studies.  For that reason, much of what cosmologists use as evidence is data collected for other reasons, or in other disciplines.

The fact that I have shown how many different findings point in the same direction is significant to notability, for this topic, in my opinion. And I have included info from a wide range of sources. Thus, there may be a small amount of Synthesis involved in creating the article, since those studying the Planck-scale domain, for example, may not be aware of how their findings impact the evolution of Large-scale structure or the exact mechanism of inflation, but the collation of such info does not constitute Original Research.

If one reads the recent article on Causal dynamical triangulation in Scientific American, for instance, it is readily apparent that the authors of that theory are quite aware their work has profound implications for Cosmology, though it was originally framed as a theory of Quantum Gravity. Likewise for Martin Bojowald's recent article on Loop Quantum Gravity, in the same publication. The cover of that issue states "The Big Bang is Dead" so it's quite obvious he understands that the dynamics of reality in the ultra-small realm can affect how the universe evolves. And the list of those exploring those connections keeps growing.

So I deny Verbal's claim that what I've done is Original Research, or a unique Synthesis that is a theory of my own, and not something apparent to other scientists. Yes, I have theories of my own that involve this subject matter, but I have refrained from expressing my own opinions on the topic. Instead; I have solicited input and opinions from most of the scientists I cited (once I'd written something), to be sure I was taking a proper journalistic approach to this article and documenting their beliefs, rather than re-interpreting what they had published to fit my own world-view. And when some replied (several did), I corrected any inaccuracies they pointed out immediately.

Thus I'm fairly certain I haven't mis-represented any scholarly work on related topics, in order to create the appearance of a relationship, or for the purpose of proving any point of my own. All I did was highlight what was already in evidence from one source or another, and point out the obvious connections.

Thanks,

JonathanD (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep absolutely, this is a developing part of physics and mathematics. This is just a some strange continuation for IMO pointless deletion of informative articles (such as E-infinity theory and Muhammed El Naschie). By the way, all the references to M. S. El Naschie have been deleted from the fractal cosmology article, why??! Probios (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It is good that WikiPedia archives past versions of a document, so that we can see what has been cut away, and so that relevant pieces can be reclaimed or restored later.  I'm not clear either, why some of those references are considered offensive.  I suppose the real question is "What constitutes Fringe science, what is pseudo-scientific, and what is over the fringe into non-scientific garbage?"  I don't have a problem with C, S, & F or Professor ElNaschie and his theories.  And I do not mind that some want to stick their heads in the sand and avoid change.  I just wish they would refrain from compelling others to do so, where it's clear new answers are emerging, but it's uncertain what those answers are.

Perhaps it is simply the Einstellung effect, where the existence of good answers, or solutions that worked before, obscures the existence of better answers and solutions. Or maybe a paradigm shift in cosmology is required before people realize that we can't pick and choose, but must find answers that conform to both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, that explain all the observed data and not merely a convenient subset, and which don't exclude part of what we know to explain some other piece.

JonathanD (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article has been updated to address some of these concerns, and to remove external links that fail WP:EL etc. Verbal   chat  10:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not the place to right great wrongs. If you think that there is a problem with the mainstream approach to cosmology, the answer is to go out and get papers published, talk at conferences, and convinced the cosmologists that there is a problem. Using Wikipedia as a soapbox like this is simply not allowed. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Hoag's Object, Proxima and Antarctica, if you can :) Denis Tarasov (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting and pretty solid on sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of valid references. Delaszk (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Those edits blanked whole sections of the article, including removing the entire "See also" and "External links" sections, so I reverted them. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Verbal has re-blanked those sections, including the "See also" and "External links" sections. The page has now been fully protected for 3 days in its shortened state. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article would benefit from more people editing it, preferably editors whose training and experience (ideally in cosmology) better qualifies them than JonathanD to write on the topic. (No offense intended to JonathanD, the same criticism can be levelled at me on the articles I've created.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Cosmology begins near or just beyond the frontiers of scientific observation and extends our knowledge, by logic, reasoning and speculation, to the limits of human imagination. Cosmological models either describe the beginning and end of time and space, or deny that time and space have a beginning or end. A successful model yields testable hypotheses about the shape of things just beyond what has previously been observed; but no model can ever be subjected to rigorous proof at infinitely large or small scales of either time or space.

Therefore, cosmology is, and must always remain, in the realm of philosophy and religion. A cosmological model is not a religion, per se; it is an aspect of religious thought which may or may not be incorportated into a religion---along with a particular theology and morality. When not incorporated into a religion, a cosmological model is mere philosophy.

The Big Bang model, based upon a religios belief in the finiteness of both space and time, has spawned a number of hypotheses testable outward to the limits of triangulation and inward to the limits of particle accelerators. Extrapolating many orders of magnitude both outward and inward, its conclusions are based on unproven assumptions and shaky, though somewhat convincing, logic. The popularity of Big Bang among the academic elite entitles it to special recognition, but not to be sheltered from the mere mention of competing models. Currently, cosmologies of finiteness enjoy a privilaged position which amounts to an establishment of religion.

I shall be disappointed if Wikipedia joins the ranks of governments and institutions in presenting the finite-universe liturgy as scientific fact while essentially burning heritical tracts like the article on fractal cosmology. I don’t see you burning articles on Islam to protect Christianity. For that matter, I don’t see the Flat Earther Society article being marked for deletion. I’m quite certain that it is more unscientific than any form of fractal cosmology.

The future of the Fractal cosmology article should be to bring it more into conformity with Wikipedia’s standards of formality, completeness, correctness and informativeness. First and foremost, it should concisely define what fractal cosmology is in generic terms. Then, it should briefly describe a number of specific fractal cosmological models, or at least attempt to categorize the known models.

The word “fractal” does not appear in the Cosmology article. Once this article is up to Wikipedia standards, the Cosmology article should be linked to this article with an additional row in the table of cosmologies. Perhaps the hierarchical universe concept of Kant and Lambert belongs in the fractal cosmology category. --Onerock (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.