Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inversion of logic in Schrödinger equation


 * 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 Speedy deleted under G5 (edits made by banned user). Hut 8.5 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Inversion of logic in Schrödinger equation

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

Original research; see Original research; see related AFDs at Heisenberg's paradox and New de Broglie's paradox. Bm gub (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per nom and WP:OR and WP:RS Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. nneonneo talk 02:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Definitely original research.  Anturiaethwr 03:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as above, clearly OR B figura  (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It's not a theory, it's not a research. Therefore nobody can repute it as  original.  The article merely comments that Schrodinger developed his equation by inverting the logic of the mathematical development.  Any theorist, by reading the article, can realize that Schrodinger indeed inverted the logic.  So, if one wants to defend the mathematics used by Schrodinger, he can do it in the page Discussion.  The inversion of logic in the development of Schrodinger equation is a fact, which any one that knows mathematics can see by himself .  The theorists avoid to speak about because it's not comfortable to them to recognize the fact.  But because they neglect a fact does not mean that the fact does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.110.3 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 21 April 2008
 * Comment if you have to do mathematics yourself to create the content for the page, as opposed to quoting someone else's math (from a peer-reviewed science paper), then that is a form of Original Research called Synthesis (Anonymous IP address(es), I hope you take the time to read these links). If theorists are not speaking about something, then it is not Notable, and thus doesn't belong on Wikipedia.  You may think it sucks that Wikipedia can't host everything, but "Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth".  No one is doubting that a phenomena exists, we doubt that any reputable sources are writing about it. -Verdatum (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Verdatum, the theorists do not speak about several other misfires of theoretical physics in the midia, because they try to avoid that people like you get knowledge of them. But they speak about them among themselves.  These questions are notable in the realm of Physics.   Why people like you cannot have the chance to know them?
 * I don't want to sound like my rebuttal is that you can't speak english. You're ISP has been traced to brazil and I have the Good Faith that you are trying your best, but I genuinely can't understand your ending question.  However, it seems that you are saying that it is the point of wikipedia to present information that otherwise wouldn't be published.  In fact, the opposite is the case.  Wikipedia is not interested in information unless it is Verifiable (again, please read this link).  If you'd like to make such information known, there are plenty of places you can go to get webspace for free without all the restrictions of Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as above; agree these are OR. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:OR.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 12:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious OR. If "the theorists avoid to speak about" then so must Wikipedia, as our standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Gandalf61 wrote: "as our standard for inclusion is [[WP:VER|verifiability"
 * Obviously Gandalf61 knows nothing of arithmetics, because the verifiability of the article is easylly made by looking at the Mathematics exhibited in the article. Even a 3 years old child is able to verify something based on Mathematics.  I recomend to the experts of Wikipedia to ask the opinion of a mathematician, since they know nothing about the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.233.159 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 21 April 2008
 * I suspect the above editor is the same as -- MightyWarrior (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article shows a paradox. There is not such a thing as a  original paradox.  The paradox is a paradox.  The paradox shown in the article is supported by the MATHEMATICS.  Therefore the process of its verifiability must be made by considering the MATHEMATICS.  If nobody discovered a paradox yet, it does not mean that it is an original paradox.  There is not such a thing as original paradox.  A paradox exists, or not.  If the MATHEMATICS PROVES that the paradox exists, it makes no sense to call it as an original paradox.  It is merely a paradox, and it exists thanks to the MATHEMATICS, and not because somebody discovered it . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.141.116.203 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 21 April 2008


 * Keep MightWarrior wrote: "I suspect the above editor is the same as "
 * Dear MightWarrior, the merit of such our discussion is based either on your suspicion, or in the merit of the arguments exhibited by you opposer ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.141.116.203 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 21 April 2008
 * Duplicate recommendation. See Articles for deletion. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per my comment above. -Verdatum (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep MightWarrior wrote: Duplicate recommendation. See Articles for deletion.
 * Well, just what prescribes the rules, where the first one is the following: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken,  sustained by arguments".
 * This is just what have been done. In each reply is used a  DIFFERENT ARGUMENT
 * Unlike, the wiki users are not folowing the wiki rules, because everytime they repeat the same argument: original research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.237.3 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research, or redirect to Time Cube. Klausness (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original philosphical musings (i.e., wrong category for article), unsupported by published references.  (It's not Time Cube, although that's a cute response.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete obvious OR, to the extent that it's coherent.DGG (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Arthur Rubin writes: "unsupported by published references"
 * ??????????????????????? So, according to Arthur Rubin the book Quantum Physics, by Eisberg&Resnick, published by Wiley & Sons in 1974, was never published
 * ????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.237.3 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep DGG and Klausness wrote "obvious OR"
 * It's a repetition of the same argument. The wiki users dont get tired to repeat the same argument, everytime. And what is the worst:  actually the article is not a research.  The article shows a paradox. A paradox exists by itself, its existence does not depend of any research.  So, the existence of a paradox is not a research.  And since it is not a research, it cannot be an original research.  Clear like water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.237.3 (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment That's 200.222.237.3's third !vote. nneonneo talk 01:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, the first rule to discuss AfD: "The debate is not a vote ; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments".   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.63.4 (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This is starting to look more like Articles for deletion/NUGGET the more I look at it. nneonneo talk 01:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is a mixture of something in a standard textbook which the editor is not putting into proper perspective and a fringe theory which no serious scientist would say solves this "so called" paradox. The material covered by the second reference is frankly complete bollocks and it has no notability even as fringe science. --Bduke (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Bduke wrote: This article is a mixture of something in a standard textbook which the editor is not putting into proper perspective 
 * Perspective ? The mathematical language does not allow us to put anything into a perspective we wish.  The mathematical language brings impartial results.  If the mathematics tells me that 2+2=4, I cannot put it into a inappropriate perspective 2+2=5.
 * Bduke wrote: "The material covered by the second reference is frankly complete bollocks and it has no notability even as fringe science".
 * What is under discussion is the inversion of logic in the Schrodinger's development of his equation. The second reference is not the subject of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.63.4 (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete 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) 06:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note that the article creator has been blocked as a sock of W. GUGLINSKI, who engaged in the same kind of behavior; see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. sho  y  16:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Close: Article speedily deleted per CSD G5: page created by a banned user in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others. nneonneo talk 17:59, 22 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.