Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selfconsistent electromagnetic constants


 * 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. Tone 20:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Selfconsistent electromagnetic constants

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Whole article is WP:SYN. Steve (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect, per nomination. There are many references, but they don't appear to refer to a group of "self-consistent electromagnetic constants". Instead, they talk about the use of individual constants. Not quite sure where this should point to. Maxwell's equations seems to have the best overlap with the article's subject matter. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, you don’t like “vacuum wave impedance” proposed by Stratton (American applyied physicist), so you want to delete the article..., and you are the theorist wich used the CGS units. Note that, the term “electromagnetic constants” was used in the first part of 20-th century (see Tamm). However, even Soviet theorist Tamm considering the LC circuit should to use the SI units..., but great Tamm considered the resonance frequency only, but not “characteristic impedance”... The athours of lower scale, for example Сена Л.А. (Sena L.A.) even in late 80-ties wroute that “there are NO any WAVE VACUUM impedance”. You are with Sena, but not with delicate Tamm. Farthermore, even Zel'dovich, B.Y. (2008), one of the former Soviet talanted theorist now returns to the “characteristic impedance”...195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange to say, you Christopher Thomas are the applied phisicist engaged in the engeneering field “CMOS Image Sensors” and you don’t like electrodynamics constants in general and “characteristic impedance” partially, which are out of scop of your proffesional interest and education...195.47.212.108 (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm only an amateur scientist, but this seems to check out.  At Wikipedia, there is going to have to have some degree of summarizing and synthesis in hard-core science articles like this one. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Babble that adds nothing to useful physics. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Good "babble" that opposites the "feeld theory" (an analog of "not even wrong")...

Note, that in the CGS units the standard field approach considers that
 * $$\epsilon_0 = \mu_0 = 1, \ $$

and electromagnetic constants are DIMENSIONLESS. This leads to "absence" of the characteristic impedance
 * $$\rho_0 = \sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}} = 1. \ $$

However, in the article is shown, that electromagnetic constant plays the dominant role in electrodynamics and determine the vacuum properties. Furthermor, it is shown trhat in the CGS units these constants are not equal to "one":
 * $$\epsilon_0 = 1/4\pi $$
 * $$\mu_0 = 4\pi /c^2 $$
 * $$\rho_0 = \sqrt{\frac{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}} = 4\pi/c. \ $$195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Original research is not acceptable in WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC).


 * Delete: This appears to be an attempt at a grand synthesis of concepts that are already covered in several Wikipedia articles. To the extent that verifiable statements or reliable sources in this article do not duplicate material already in other articles, they should be moved, and adapted as necessary, to the appropriate articles. However, this should not exist as a separate article in Wikipedia. Finell (Talk) 22:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as original synthesis. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be original synthesis without notability. Neither standard internet searches nor my printed reference materials indicate that this presentation of material is canonical, and it overlaps substantially with other articles which present related topics more clearly. Ben Kidwell (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Ultimately this article would need to be drastically overhauled. I can detect an unequivocal point of view being pushed, in that I can't see the basis for the categorization of these constants into a primary and a secondary group. In my view, claiming that the speed of light is more fundamental than the magnetic permeability is akin to saying that the speed of sound in a solid rod is a more fundamental constant of the rod material than the density of that material. As for the 377 Ohms for vacuum impedance, this is the interesting bit. I have seen it derived in relation to the space in the immediate vicinity of a transmission line. The derivation involves inductance in relation to a phenomenon that primarily involves capacitance, and if my memory serves me correct, the derivation depends on the geometry being two long wires that are very close together. As such, I most certainly can't see the 377 Ohms as being a more fundamental constant of free space in general, than the electric permittivity or the magnetic permeability. Nevertheless, the 377 Ohms of impedance in free space is a very interesting concept, and it is sourced. It is a thorn in the neck for anti-aetherists due to the fact that it implies a dielectric nature for space, and I would hope that this isn't the real motive that is driving those who wish to delete the article lock, stock, and barrel. Perhaps an attempt should first be made at neutralizing the article. Failing that, if the article is finally deleted, I would like to see the 377 Ohms being placed in an alternative article, perhaps about transmission lines, if it is not already mentioned there. David Tombe (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The speed of light is more fundamental than magnetic constant by traditions from the one hand (so it happens by historically). From the other hand, the speed of light is the "upper limit" of velocity in our Universe, and it is connected with other dielectric and magnetic constants by relation $$c = 1/\sqrt{\mu_{0}\epsilon_{0}}$$. Ulternatively, the electromagnetic vacuum impedance $$\rho_{0E} = \sqrt{\mu_{0E}}/\epsilon_{0E} $$ and gravitational characteristic impedance $$\rho_{G} = \sqrt{\mu_{G}}/\epsilon_{G} $$ doesn't LIMITING the characteristic impedances in both cases (electromagnetic and gravitational). And the last, but not the least. We have the TWO upper limits for wave's speed: $$c_E = 1/\sqrt{\mu_{E}\epsilon_{E}}$$ - for electromagnetic waves and $$c_G = 1/\sqrt{\mu_{G}\epsilon_{G}}$$ - for gravitational waves. Furthermore, these values are equal to each other: $$c_E = c_G = c $$! 195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is one of the limiting cases of characteristic impedance, and is already described at impedance of free space. The derivation is presented in pretty much any electromagnetics course. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that, the article characteristic impedance considers “classical case” only. Furthermore, the transmission line is the partial case of general LC circuit, or “electromagnetic resonator” (see Feinmann lectures for example). The QUANTUM case is considered in the article Quantum electromagnetic resonator. There are NO any DERIVATION in the article impedance of free space..., but DEFINITIONS only.195.47.212.108 (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. In short, I consider this a useless essay. One can write numerous articles claiming some constants are more "primary" than others, but they would not help the physical theories (which are the primary goal, not the constants they use). The mere fact that some systems (and most theoreticians) set ε0 and µ0 = 1 speaks for itself (that they are not primary or self-consistent constants). Materialscientist (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, for reasons given; essentially that notability is WP:SYN, assuming it is technically correct. This person could become a good editor, but needs mentoring, and a neutral POV.  Faulty English is a complication, making his articles difficult to parse.  A clear and compelling summary of the need for this innovation, summarizing arguments referable to reliable external sources, would address the original synthesis objection, and would help make the material more accessible if it can be provided (which I doubt, alas).  I think such a motivational summary ought to appear as an introduction, and precede the details.  Wwheaton (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SYN. As you know, the physics models and theories are based on axiomatic method which use the strongly Mathematical logic. Therefore, when A = C and B = C, then A = B! Farthermore, when we suppose that CGS units are equivalent to the SI units then should be some transformation RULES that transform physical values from one system to another. For example, $$L_{SI} = L_{CGS} $$, $$C_{SI} = C_{CGS} $$, $$\epsilon_{SI} = \epsilon_{CGS} $$, $$\mu_{SI} = \mu_{CGS} $$, $$\rho_{SI} = \rho_{CGS} $$, etc., but that isn't the case! So, the theorists considering the LC circuits and electromagnetic waves goes to the SI units!195.47.212.108 (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The pieces may all be correct and not WP:OR, but the WP:SYN rule still requires the pieces to be explicitly combined in a reliable external source. Without such external sourcing it is OR, not externally verifiable, and therefore not notable.  A harsh rule, but there it is, and it is probably even necessary.  Get it published by a reputable refereed journal, and accepted by the community, and it is OK.  Otherwise, it's an innovation, and as such not encyclopedic.  Wwheaton (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Does indeed seem to be original research. Glass  Cobra  16:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would say that the author should start all over again. As it stands now, it reads more like a thesis, than like an encyclopaedia article. There is good material here, but it needs to be re-organized and the opinions removed. There is no harm in principle in having an article on this topic. It is a good idea to have these constants all discussed together on one page. David Tombe (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You have some expierence in discussions on the theme speed of light... What do you mean by saying “it needs to be re-organized and the opinions removed.”?195.47.212.108 (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to your opinion about the two categories. We can state the relationship between the speed of light, the magnetic permeability, and the electric permittivity, but we cannot make an opinion as to which of them is more fundamental than the other. And yes, I did indeed get caught up in a major controversy about how the speed of light, when expressed in terms of modern SI units, fits into that relationship, which is why I am interested in your article. I am advising you based on my own experiences. You have got good material in the article, and it is a very interesting topic. At first I was suggesting that you needed to make a major overhaul. But seeing the hostility that your article has received, I am now advising you to just let it go, and start all over again. Make sure you keep copies of the draft material so that you can copy and paste the difficult equations with ease. Then start a new article. Concentrate on the inter-relationships, but drop your own opinions. If you remove the opinions about relative fundamentality and set out the inter-relationships clearly, it will be interesting to see if your new article is still opposed, and on what basis. If it is opposed the second time round, at least you will know that it is not over the issue of 'opinion'. I support your idea of having an article that deals with the inter-relationships between these quantities, but as this article stands right now, you have left yourself wide open with your opinions. David Tombe (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank David. What means "your own opinions"? It seems to me that there no one... So, what in your mind should be deleted concrete?195.47.212.108 (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You should remove the 'two categories' classification, because that classification is your own opinion regarding which of these quantities are the more fundamental. I doubt if you would find a textbook that ever presents this point of view. You need to narrow it down in order to find out what is the offending material. Also, my advice is that you need to write it more in the style of an encyclopaedia article as if it were in something like Encyclopaedia Britannica. Just stick to the facts and lay out all the inter-relationships clearly. You will soon discover whether or not it is the actual inter-relationships themselves that are the offending material.

Also, the title had a word 'Selfconsistent'. You need to get rid of that word. Pick a more general title like 'Fundamental constants of electromagnetism'. David Tombe (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * More thanks David.195.47.212.108 (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

195.47.212.108 Here's a source that you may find useful at some point in the future. The author obviously shares your opinion about which two constants are the most fundamental. But I have to confess that I see them all as being equally fundamental. David Tombe (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Apeiron" is a reliable source? Further more thanks David. Note that Bishop presents the viewpoint from the West, and I - from the East. But both approaches lead to the same result.195.47.212.108 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I found that interesting. Until I traced your IP server to the east, I thought that maybe you were Forrest Bishop. Forrest Bishop comes up with some good ideas. I don't agree with him on that particular point, but I can put you in touch with him if you like. There is a debate on right now at WT:PHYS which is discussing the controversy surrounding the inter-relationships between these constants. You should take a look. I'll be fascinated to see how your new article tackles the post 1983 SI units hornet's nest. That may well turn out to be its achilles heel. David Tombe (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * delete SYN William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2009 (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.