Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heisenberg's paradoxical criterion


 * 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 WP:SNOW delete as WP:OR, and also as a likely creation of a sock- or meatpuppet of a banned user. Sandstein (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Heisenberg&

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

This looks like pretty clear original research, in that it appears to be making a very strong argument by weaving together sources and quotations that don't support this argument. I do not believe there is anything to be salvaged here; the premise makes no sense from the perspective of the mainstream physics community, and there's no evidence that the viewpoint is notable. SCZenz (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * SCZebz said:
 * "This looks like..."
 * "I do not believe there is anything..."


 * 'COMMENT:'
 * A discussion cannot be supported by personal beliefs. Instead of, it must be supported by arguments, based on FACTS.  And the FACTS disprove what you say, '''since the paradoxical feature of Heisenberg's criterion has been pointed out by Einstein, Karl Pooper, and others, as quoted bellow:


 * 1- In a footnote in this paper Popper states that Heisenberg's instrumentalism is far from consistent, and that he has many anti-instrumentalist remarks to his credit, '''but that Heisenberg's view of quantum theory necessarily leads to an instrumentalist philosophy by neglecting falsification and stressing application.
 * http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:KK8sZfg5fccJ:www.philsci.com/book5-3.htm+popper+einstein+heisenberg&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=br


 * 2- Is the scientific method both faith and knowledge based?
 * Anyway... How do other scientific methods handle your question, "What is the colour, smell, taste and feel of a tau neutrino?"
 * About the same way they handle determination of the isospin and isotope composition of an uffish thought!
 * http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:Mz0BhB65rJ4J:www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-59738.html+popper+isospin&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=br


 * 3- On the Einstein's opinion on the Heisenberg's criterion that electron's trajectory does not exist within a chamber fog:
 * A theory that cannot be tested and validated by experiments is merely a hypothesis, not a theory. Is there a reverberation of 'positivism' here? Heisenberg(16) who had also been concerned about this issue in the past with respect to quantum mechanics, had described his views, which bear on the experimental verification of a theory, thus, "…I thought it was probably the idea of introducing only observable quantities….Einstein had pointed out to me that it is really dangerous to say that one should only speak about observable quantities. Every reasonable theory will, besides all things which one can immediately observe, also give the possibility of observing other things more indirectly."
 * 16. Heisenberg, W., "Theory, Criticism, And Philosophy", in Unification of Fundamental Forces, 1988 Dirac Memorial Lecture, New York, 1990, pp. 98 - 100. (quoted in the article Heisenberg's paradoxical criterion )
 * http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:oSZJVjXCHEwJ:www.chowk.com/articles/5048+heisenberg+%22unification+of+fundamental+forces%22&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=br


 * 4-Unification of Fundamental Forces by Abdus Salam, Cambridge, pp 143 8.95 Pounds/$14.95: 
 * Heisenberg's is somewhat fuller of personal detail, explaining his interactions with Sommerfeld, Bohr, and others, and in particular bringing out the importance of Eistein's comment that one could not speak of observation in a theory-free manner. Both lecturers discuss the role of mathematics. Heisenberg takes the view that it can be a brake on progress in physics, a fault for which he criticises Pauli.
 * http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:gWfgF2LZ56YJ:www.newscientist.com/article/mg12817414.800-review-the-physicists-gift-of-the-gab-.html+heisenberg+%22unification+of+fundamental+forces%22&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=br


 * 5- Wikiquote (Albert Einstein):
 * Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed:
 * Objecting to the placing of observables at the heart of the new quantum mechanics, during Heisenberg's 1926 lecture at Berlin; related by Heisenberg, quoted in Unification of Fundamental Forces (1990) by Abdus Salam ISBN 0521371406
 * http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:3K1eMHrUYekJ:en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein+heisenberg+%22unification+of+fundamental+forces%22+einstein&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=br


 * So, it is proved by AN EXTENSE SOURCE''' that the paradoxical feature of Heisenberg's criterion is notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.97.93.67 (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. A while back, there was an AfD for Heisenberg's paradox and this looks like the same material.  (In fact, the author identifies himself as, in essence, a meatpuppet of the banned user who created that one.)  As before, neither Google (Books, Scholar, or just a straight search), Academic Search Premiere, nor JSTOR knows anything about it, so delete as OR.  I'd recommend speedy deletion as A4, except that I don't have access to the original page so I can't be certain this is the same.   Anturiaethwr  Talk  16:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Meat Puppet (or sock puppet) of a banned user. It's OR.  It's not true.  It borders on nonsense.  And the AfD debate is going to draw up the same old nonsense.  Salt it, to. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * REGARDING TO THE TWO Strong Delete ABOVE, look what said Pontiff Greg Bard in the Editing Talk ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heisenberg%27s_paradoxical_criterion ):
 * Articles may be speedily deleted if they do not have a supported claim of notability. If you can find some places that have published on this topic, include them under sources. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In the Editing Talk it's also written :
 * I am YURI2008 YURI2000 (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am a friend of W.GUGLINSKI, banned out from Wikipedia


 * Three weeks ago W.GUGLINSKI asked me to edit three articles in here.


 * The articles have been deleted (speedy deletion) by alleging that W.GUGLINSKI has been banned.
 *  However such argument makes no sense. Because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and I have the right to edit an article.


 * If an article of mine is inadequate or not to Wikipedia rules, it must be decided in a regular process of discussion.  But not in a speedy process, by alleging that W.GUGLINSKI was banned.


 * After all, I am the editor of the articles, and not W.GUGLINSKI.


 * Therefore the two arguments above are disqualified, as shown by Pontiff Greg Bard, and they cannot be taken in consideration YURI2000 (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except he didn't SAY any of that. He said this:     "Articles may be speedily deleted if they do not have a supported claim of notability. If you can find some places that have published on this topic, include them under sources. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC) " There is no conceivable way you could interpret that to mean anyhting other than what is explicity said.  And you have gone one further, by attributing your words as his. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * delete WP:OR Pigman ☿ 17:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Whoever keeps making comments about this article being mathematical and therefore not research is missing the point. The WP:OR policy is not designed to prevent editors from gathering data and drawing conclusion from them. It is not designed to enjoin editors against a specific activity. It is designed to prevent material that is novel and unique from being introduced into wikipedia. So, even though the proof that (for example) e is irrational requires nothing more than knowledge and applications of the properties of real numbers, it does not belong in wikipedia unless we are summarizing a treatment from an outside source. The inherent validity of the claim is not what makes it research or not. Empirical claims are no different from theoretical claims as far as wikipedia is concerned--even though there is a gulf between them philosophically. You seem to be capable of understanding the mathematical implications of these articles, so let's make sure you can understand the implications of our arguments. Your defense is based on an incorrect connotation of the word research. You interpret research to mean non-tautological results from empirical data. For one, that isn't strictly true. For another thing, that is not how wikipedia defines research. I know I'm being repetitive, but I need to make sure this point is clear. If I need to be even more elementary, let me. the research is not the creation of the theoretical result (in this case, the paradox) from axioms. The research is the revelation of that result to the world. Regardless of the inherent truth of any theoretical claim, someone, somewhere has to reveal it. The policy of wikipedia is that the revelation not occur here first. Provide a clear, cited source that reveals the paradox and shows that it is notable, then you can keep the article. Until then, no dice." Protonk (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The two Delete above are disqualified, according to Pontiff Greg Bard, YURI2000 (talk)
 * Comment I doubt the various users posting about this will get the hint but here, in unambiguous terms, is why this article doesn't belong on wikipedia. Any debate from  YURI2000 on this subject can come to my talk page.  I'm not interested in explanations which rest of quotes from Einstein or anything else.  As a matter of fact, i am not interested in entertaining any debate on the inherent validity or invalidity of the article.  That is not a debate for wikipedia but for the scientific community in general.  Here (as we are faced with a repost of past articles) are my comments from the last AFD's.


 * Protonk said: I'm not interested in explanations which rest of quotes from Einstein or anything else
 * COMMENT on Protonk words : ??????????????????
 * Why not? After all, everything gyrates about the following fundamental point regarding to the wikipedia rules: Is the subject of the article notable, or not?.
 * RESPONSE TO THIS FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION: Well, since the subject was discussed by Einstein, Popper, Heisenberg, etc., and it is quoted in several books and in several websites, this is a proof that the subject is notable.
 * What is of interest is not the "explanations which rest of quotes from Einstein or anything else'"'', BUT YES THE FACT THAT EINSTEIN AND OTHER ONES DISCUSSED THE SUBJECT, and not if their discussion is of the interest of the wiki members, or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.104.15 (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)  — 189.48.104.15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Right. If those quotes related fundamentally to what is in the article, it might be interesting.  But that isn't the case.  You trot out quotes by Karl Popper as though his general feelings about logical positivism should be interpreted as a significant secondary source on the subject.  You also quote Einstein in a conversation with Heisenberg.  While Einstein's stubbornness with regard to Quantum mechanics is an important topic (and is, no doubt, covered in the QM article and the Einstein article), it does not somehow impute notability on to your topic, which is NOT realted to this envisioning of some fundamental paradox in QM.  Consequently, we are left with Gulginki's book, mentioning his belief in the paradox and its possible resolution and another source which doesn't bear on the subject in the article.  THAT is what I meant when I didn't want to hear about Einstein.  Let me put it this way.  The WP page is about this elucidation of some supposed paradox.  Such an elucidation didn't exist until Gulginski published it.  Therefore, Einstein et al could not have been talking about Gulginski's theories (not notable) but were instead talking about existing theories and problems in QM (notable).  Don't bring in extraneous material and presume that it somehow provides sources for the article. Protonk (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * comment Wow, everyone is stemming on my statement. Listen, I'm not a physicist, so I am inclined to defer to any active members of the physics wikiproject. However, with that said, very often, the prevailing culture of a wikiproject (or academic department, etc) can miss the significance of things too. If there exist secondary sources that discuss this topic, which perhaps discuss a pro and/or con side, then it should stay --but you have to produce it. If there is only primary sources, then perhaps parts of it should be merged into some other article. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Greg, it's not necessary to be a physicist to understand the point under discussion. The question is:  the subject of the article is notable, or not?  It's not necessary to be a physicist to understand that the subject is notable, since it is quoted in several websites and several books, writen by Popper, Heisenber, Dirac, Salam, etc.
 * That's a total falsehood. Nowhere is the material in the article covered in books by Dirac et al unless you throw the net so broadly as to catch practically everything in QM.  The SPECIFIC paradox Gulginski and this article refer to nor its resolution are mentioned by ANY of the sources quoted here or on the article page with the exception of Gulginski.  The SPECIFIC scope of the article is not something that includes discussion noted in secondary sources.  Show me where Karl Popper says that the supposed paradox formed from the repulsive force of neutrons can only be resolved by Gulginski's book?  Show me where Dirac says the same, or Einstein.  The burden of proof is on you.  I can tell you that it isn't going to be hard to find Karl Popper's complaints about the physical sciences at the time.  I can also tell you it isn't going to be ahrd to find Einstein's complaints about QM.  But neither of those lend any credence to this article. Protonk (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Aspects of old material spun up with a novel and utterly non-notable analysis, precisely what the previously-mentioned-here was blocked for performing non-stop. Maybe Guglinski could have made this clear to you, seeing he was blocked precisely for ignoring numerous warnings of it, but unless a theory or analysis has received coverage in independent reliable sources (i.e. peer-reviewed journal articles that neither you nor your friends had anything to do with), it is going to be deleted. Citing Dirac and Heisenberg isn't going to get you anywhere as they're probably not publishing anymore, and Guglinski's papers are worthless as far as Wikipedia guidelines are concerned. Or maybe you are Guglinski. Either way, I hope I've made this pretty clear. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * UNACCEPTABLE ARGUMENT, because:
 * 1- What is under discussion is: whether the subject of the article is notable, or not.
 * 2- The articles edited by W.GUGLINSKI some months ago have been deleted because they were not notable.
 * 3- The subject of the present article is notable, and therefore it cannot be evaluated from the same criterion applied to old articles edited by W.GUGLINSKI in the past.
 * 4- It's not important who is the author of the article, and who edited it.  What is under discussion is:  is the article notable or not? — 200.222.234.19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment Also, ZOMG sockz. 189.48.104.15 Is basically using the same tone and formatting as YURI2000. At this point I'm still (sigh) willing to assume good faith and guess that he just signed out, so I won't file anything.  But please don't use anon IP's to get into the debate. Protonk (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)  Actually, upon further reflection, I'm prepared to say that YURI2000 has an awful lot of tone and formatting similarities w/ W.Guglinski.  Take a look. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete clearly a novel synthesis of ideas at best. This is textbook WP:OR and should be deleted forthwith.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 200.222.234.19 is another sock. Protonk (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete only 2 ghits both of which are wikipedia. I can't find any reliable 3rd party sources. There is also the obvious COI, Meat/Sock thing. Additionally, is there a valid reason why it is nominated for Speedy & up for AfD? Shouldn't it be one or the other?Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I started the AfD before I was aware the issues it would cause, and the fact that Wikipedia had been through all of it before. As this has become apparent, some users have requested administrator intervention, both with the speedy request and a post on the administrator's noticeboard; this request seems sensible enough to me.  (Does sensible still equal "valid" on Wikipedia?  I haven't edited much lately.) -- SCZenz (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - original research by a banned user using sockpuppets or meatpuppets. It actually sounds not too far fetched, but is certainly novel, and I might actually find a bit of truthiness in the piece.  But that is not what WP is about.   The creator should privately publish this work elsewhere, and pay for it, just like real business people do, or submit it to a referreed journal, just like real scientists do.  Wikipedia is a charity -- and it is not the place to make a would-be Nobel Prize winner any money. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 29 April 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.