Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lynds


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Lynds

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about a self-taught physicist who has had one paper published in a refereed journal. There are many, many scientists in the world who have made far more significant contributions to science without being notable enough to have WP articles about them. The paper was discussed in the popular media at the time, but this does not establish notability. Lynds is good at selling himself to the media. He also has a documented history of misrepresenting his identity and education, and of using sockpuppets when communicating with the media. The article has recently been the subject of an edit war between user SamW2 and a number of other users. User SamW2 had no history of contributing to WP before getting involved with this article. Since sockpuppetry could be an issue, I should clarify my own identity. I don't normally log in to WP in order to edit, and I have been participating in the recent work on the article from IP address 75.83.65.81. However, it is not possible to go through the deletion process as an anonymous user, so for that purpose I've logged into the account Fashionslide, which has existed since 2011. My name is Ben Crowell, and I'm a physicist. Fashionslide (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * delete. GS h-index of 5. Too early for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. (Disclaimer: I too have participated recently on this article). This has been a POV-pushing article for a long time. The only peer-reviewed contribution from Lynds appears to be a 2003 FPL paper, which generated brief media coverage. However, it was noted in a journal article shortly after that the ideas in this paper were entirely preceded by Henri Bergson in his 1896 book Matter and Memory, evidently unbeknownst to Lynds or his paper's referees (S E Robbins (2004) On time, memory and dynamic form. Consciousness and Cognition 13(4), 762-788: "Lynds, his reviewers and consultants (e.g., J.J.C. Smart) are apparently unaware of his total precedence by Bergson"). Moreover, this paper has only been cited 5 times in the >10 years since its publication (WoS). These observations indicate impact far below even the average working physicist. Agricola44 (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC).
 * delete for the reasons given above.--Fashionslide (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. The academic career is obviously not notable, so we have to look to the media coverage. But that fails WP:BIO1E and WP:EVENTCRIT (no lasting historical significance). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. I was bought here through the WP:WPNZ alerting system and have to say that the guy has no visibility in New Zealand. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Be aware that you are voting on a version of the Peter Lynds page that has been battered into nothing, and negatively slanted, by Fashionslide, Agricola, and David Epstein (an admin), who seem to find Lynds' very existence upsetting. I have some theories as to why. Look at the talk page, look at the original version of the page, look Lynds up on google. He has other papers, some of which have also received a good amount of attention. Then again, with this sort of carry on, Peter is probably better off not being on Wikipedia. SamW2 (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC) — SamW2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As was extensively discussed at the talk page, none of those papers are published – their views have not been accepted, nor even vetted by the mainstream physics community. The version of the article to which you refer was basically all WP:OR. A subtle point is that we're debating Lynds' notability, not the notability of any particular version of the article. Folks are free to go back and look, but the closing admin will make the final decision based upon whether or not Lynds himself satisfies any of the notability guidelines, not whether some particular bit of text happens to be or not to be in the current version. I'm very sorry for any anxiety this has caused. Agricola44 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC).


 * Ok. One more time. Archive pages seem to be fine for Biography of living persons pages, especially if those papers have received documentable attention. 1000s of pages here show this. Many people also solely publish a paper on Arxiv. Take Grigori Perelman and Garret Lisi. However, I just did some more searching and found this http://www.necsi.edu/events/iccs7/viewpaper.php?id=225. It's a short peer reviewed (look up the info about the proceedings) conference paper on his cosmology theory. A paper from the same conference by others on Lynds's paper is here http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.5046 Google Lynd's paper to find a lot of discussion and articles about it, such as http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/lynds1.shtml and http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/111 I also found these quotes here http://www.newswise.com/articles/it-all-began-with-an-end-new-theory-on-origin-and-future-of-the-universe


 * "About Lynds' theory, Dr. Paul Frampton, Louis D. Rubin Jr. Distinguished Professor of Physics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says, "I enjoyed reading Lynds' article about an endless and beginningless universe, especially as I have myself worked on such a model recently (Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 071301, 2007). Lynds addresses the key issue of the second law of thermodynamics in a novel way and I'll be curious to see how far he can take it."


 * Dr. Jonathan Vos Post, a former Professor of Astronomy at Cyprus, College. California, and Professor of Mathematics at Woodbury University, California, says, "I consider Peter Lynds's arXiv paper to be a bold and magnificent speculation. Those who attack him are misguided, in that Peter Lynds' arguments need to be put in proper historical context, which is apparently outside the educational background of those who prematurely dismiss the subtleties of Peter Lynds insights. Let me refer back to an 1895 paper by the immortal [Ludwig] Boltzmann, which has recently attracted attention in the controversy over so-called "Boltzmann Brains." The reference is Nature 51, 413 (1895). [Long quote by Ludwig Boltzmann concerning the second law of thermodynamics and the possibility of universe later returning to its present state]. Peter is cursed with having brilliant theories that his detractors falsely assume are based on ignorance. His startling re-analyses of (1) Zeno's paradox, (2) the nature of Time, and (3) the nature of consciousness, have been spuriously opposed by naive critics who claim that Peter does not know (1) Calculus, (2) Relativity, (3) Psychology. To the contrary, I hold that his ability to ask "simple" questions, and give extraordinary answers, is close in many ways to the genius of Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, Paul Erdos, John Wheeler, Stephen Wolfram, and Frank Zappa."


 * Dr. Werner Israel, a Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Alberta, Canada, and a Fellow at Canada's Institute for Advanced Study Cosmology and Gravity Programme, says, "I found Peter Lynds' ideas on possible reversals of time's arrow interesting, in part because I have entertained less bold but not dissimilar ideas myself. In 1991 I co-authored a note in Nature which speculated on the possibility that the growth of entropy near a big crunch might be, not reversed exactly, but enormously diluted by a process called mass inflation at the inner horizons of coalescing black holes. This would make a transition to an expanding phase very nearly reversible thermodynamically."  Small text


 * His paper on Zeno's paradoxes seems to be referenced in a large number of articles about the paradoxes on the web. A google search for "solution to Zeno's paradoxes" brings his paper up as the second result. His consciousness paper is also discussed and referenced extensively on the web. As as example, there is this (a very recent reference in a good psychology journal) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4013454/ His first paper has 71 citations on google scholar, the others around 10 each.


 * As for Lynds' possible notability, among many, there are articles such as this http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/physics.html and this http://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/aug/14/research.highereducation SamW2 (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * None of which seems to satisfy WP:NACADEMICS. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. But many of those aren't relevant to Lynds as he isn't in academia. That he isn't, and doesn't have a degree, is part of what makes him qualify as notable. He qualifies under WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. David Epstein claimed that he is notable for just one event and has had no lasting impact. The wired article came out two years after his first paper was published, and the impact of that work is ongoing, as his Zeno paper shows. His papers since (the existence of which some of you seem to want to deny) have also received documentable attention, and his work seems to be ongoing. I also found this (look down the page a little) https://dir.yahoo.com/science/physics/physicists/ SamW2 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Notability has nothing to do with level of education. David knows mathematics as well as anyone here and his claim is correct: the work is not WP:LASTING and the publicity was written by people who apparently did not understand that these kinds of paradoxes had been resolved long ago – for example by Weierstrass' disproving of the idea of infinitesimals. (Our own WP page on Zeno's paradox was a little murky on this point, so I added another reference from Bertrand Russell.) Finally, I think you're confusing the concept of a paper (which is published) versus a manuscript (which is not). Agricola44 (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC).
 * "A google search ... brings his paper up as the second result" is basically arguing WP:GHITS, which is irrelevant to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC).
 * It's not a case of google hits, but the paper's google rankng and ranking for that search string, which is mostly a question of links and their quality. Google is saying that Lynd's Zeno paper is very notable in connection to Zeno's paradoxes. SamW2 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "It's not a case of google hits" (no WP:GHITS) ... "Google is saying" (WP:GHITS). It can't be both ways. Agricola44 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC).


 * Weak delete Delete. This is a biography article, and does it meet the GNG? This as best I can determine is a judgment call; essentially we have an independent thinker coming up with a radical theory in the gray area between physics and philosophy, with a hard-to-prove and hard-to-test theory about a subject as baffling as the metaphysical nature of time. GNG requires multiple independent sources, and I think we have this here, strictly speaking, that Lynds posited this theory, and so forth, but the problem being that the sources, themselves, say that Lynds' theory is only speculation, that they don't fully understand it, that they have no way of knowing whether this is true or verifiable. Further, the article is a sort of open invitation to indulge in the theorizing itself, that is, it would be hard to keep the theoretical aspects of this subject away from the biography of the thinker. So we find ourselves in a tough situation here, specifically in that how can we keep to the Wikipedia pillar of not having any original research? See, if we keep this article, in effect Wikipedia is giving credence to the theory in some respect, and I do not think this is something Wikipedia is qualified to do. That is, isn't it up to the academics and physicists to render some kind of opinion on the merits of this issue? I think so. I think it best to defer to those trained, although there is a streak in me that likes challenging theories (even if untrue) simply because they inspire further thinking, further debate, and so forth. If Lynds' ideas gain greater credence in the professional community, then the article can be refloated, but for now, I think the wise choice is to delete it, but please remember my opinion is only from a non-academic whose only acquaintance with real physical knowledge comes from falling off a ladder while painting.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Regarding "an independent thinker coming up with a radical theory", it seems that once Robbins' paper was published in 2004 (see above), the community became aware that Lynds' paper was preceded Bergson in his 1896 book Matter and Memory. This is likely why Lynds' paper has been barely cited in the peer-reviewed literature in >10 years since its publication. Agricola44 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply. Yes I read that in your delete comment above, but I am wondering if you think Lynds read Bergson? My guess is that Lynds didn't (although it is a guess only), but if I'm right, then what appears to be the case is that Bergson's theory came up roughly 100 years ago, was promptly (and properly?) forgotten, resurrected in the 21st century by Lynds perhaps with a new emphasis, independently (probably), and the theory still remains highly and influentially forgettable. What I think would be worthwhile would be to include this discussion in philosophy-related deletion discussions, since isn't this really more of a topic in philosophy (really metaphysical philosophy) rather than physics? It seems to be in no-man's land between physics and philosophy. Again, I think that is another of the many issues at play in this discussion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Lynds was very likely not aware of Bergson's book. The fact that Lynds work was published only means that his paper happened to be assigned to one or two particular referees who likewise were not familiar with this book. This phenomenon happens much more frequently than people realize (the average researcher only has command of a small portion of the results in her field), which is why there is considerable duplication in the literature. Bergson's theory was, in fact, not forgotten and his book remains widely read and cited, for example it is still in print, is held by a large number of libraries, is frequently reviewed, etc. It is probably more correct to say that this particular topic (between physics and philosophy) is relatively obscure. As with many of the "classical questions" of philosophy, mathematic resolved Zeno's paradox long ago, so this sort of thing simply is not of interest to the physics/math community as a research problem. Agricola44 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC).
 * I have looked at Lynds's paper on Zeno's paradoxes, and while I see distinct resemblances with Bergson's theory of time, they are not much stronger than those between Robert Grosseteste's theories of the creation of the universe and modern popular accounts of Big Bang theory. And the paper actually zooms fairly neatly at the weak spot in the standard mathematical resolution of Zeno's paradoxes - the fact that it substitutes for our naive conception of continuity a conceptually very different alternative based on sufficiently close discrete points. Having said that, I suspect that Lynds's view meets equal but different problems philosophically, and there is absolutely no indication that Lynds understands how, for his theory to be seriously acceptable, it needs not only to cast fresh illumination on one mostly philosophical problem but also explain in detail how it supports the rest of modern physics or supplants it with something in similar detail that is at least as well supported by current evidence. So at this stage, I'm certainly not arguing to keep. PWilkinson (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * He has other papers on the topic like this one http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/240 They were previously on the page. There are also articles like this http://itotd.com/articles/582/quantized-time/ SamW2 (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're citing a blog that has gems like "if [Lynds] were correct, that would mean that calculus as we know it must be essentially wrong". These are not reliable sources. Agricola44 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Updated from weak delete to delete (modified vote above) based on Agricola.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2014 (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.