Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong gravitational constant


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Strong gravitational constant
In Astronomy the only one available characteristic empirical physical constant is the gravitational constant. Without completing the charge-mass unification or final unification: one cannot say, whether it is an ‘input to the unification’ or ‘output of unification’. The same idea can be applied to the atomic physical constants also. Sitting in a grand unified roof one cannot make an ‘absolute measurement’ but can make an ‘absolute finding’. Till today no atomic model implemented the gravitational constant in the atomic or nuclear physics. Then, whatever may be its magnitude, measuring its value from existing atomic principles is impossible. Its value was measured in the lab within a range of 1 cm to 1 meter only  where as the observed nuclear size is 1.2 fermi. Until one measures the value of the gravitational constant in microscopic physics, the debate of  strong (nucler) gravity can be considered positively. The idea of strong gravity originally referred specifically to mathematical approach of Abdus Salam of unification of gravity and quantum chromodynamics, but is now often used for any particle level gravity approach. Now many persons are working on this subject. The main advantage of this subject is: it couples Black hole physics and Particle physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.205.121 (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log )

nominator changes to keep/improve WP:FRINGE. Article cites one utterly non-notable mainstream reference (Sivaram & Sinha 1977, cited 10 times 1978-1993, only twice by someone other than Sivaram or Sinha); two recognizable crackpot journals (cold fusion and Progress in Physics); and four articles apparently by User:fedosin himself. Oldershaw 2007 is in a dubious journal and has never been cited; moreover Oldershaw is a collaborator of Fedosin's and their joint work has been AfD'ed before (Articles_for_deletion/Infinite_Hierarchical_Nesting_of_Matter)   Bm gub (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Bm gub (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In second shot list of references to Strong gravitational constant may be explained as the idea is only in recent time become more actual because of difficulties of Standard theory of particles.
 * Thank you for the beginning of discussion. I have some remarks. First of all, Oldershaw only one author in Russian Wikipedia article about Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter, and the article is there some years.

You quite right when say about some of the references are not in very popular journals. But new ideas very seldom are published in popular journals if authors do not well-known. So on the base of discussion I feel it is necessary to add some other references in article Strong gravitational constant. Two of them are papers of Nobel Laureate in Physics Abdus Salam, and first of it with Sivaram C., mentioned above:
 * 1) Salam A. and Sivaram C. Strong Gravity Approach to QCD and Confinement. Mod. Phys. Lett., 1993, v. A8(4), 321–326.
 * 2) Strong Interactions, Gravitation and Cosmology. Abdus Salam Publ. in: NATO Advanced Study Institute, Erice, June16-July 6, 1972 ; in: High Energy Astrophysics and its Relation to Elementary Particle Physics, 441-452 MIT Press, Cambridge (1974).

I also added two papers of Recami (but he and coauthors has a lot also about the Strong gravitational constant):
 * 1) Recami, E.; Ammiraju, P.; Hernandez, H.E.; Kretly, L.C.; Rodrigues, W.A., Jr. Elementary particles as micro-universes: a geometric approach to "strong gravity". Apeiron, January 01, 1997.
 * 2) Recami E. and Tonin-Zanchin V. The strong coupling constant: its theoretical derivation from a geometric approach to hadron structure. Found. Phys. Lett., 1994, v, 7(1), 85–92.

I also added two papers (see article Strong gravitational constant about it): Fedosin (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Stone R.A. Quark Confinement and Force Unification. Progress in Physics, April 2010, Vol. 2, P. 19–20.
 * 2) Perng  J. J. Strong gravitation and elementary particles. Nuovo Cimento, Lettere, Serie 2, vol. 23, N. 15, 1978, p. 552-554.
 * Thank you for the input Fedosin.  However, you have just supplied links to a set of well-known WP:FRINGE journals.   Progress in Physics and Apeiron are both in .    Until t'Hooft took over, Foundations of Physics was just as bad.
 * Nuovo Cimento is highly variable and historically has published lots of nonsense. Let's look at the particular document you cite: It's from an author with no other published work whatsoever.  It's cited only once, and only by Singh, and in a way that doesn't really use any of its conclusions.  (It's mentioned as one of two papers that make a similar choice of ansatz.)   Your links seem to support, not refute, my impression that "Strong gravity" is a non-notable topic, pursued 20 years ago by a small number of non-mainstream physicists; and that it was barely publishable even at the time and is certainly forgotten now.
 * What would help would be a *mainstream review article* citing these papers and explaining their context, but clicking through citation-links I find no evidence that any such article exists.  Bm gub (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK The Salam article is a different story. This is an obviously non-fringe author, and it leads to actual citations that continue---many in a fringe-y way, but not all---into the present day.  This is enough to convince me to withdraw the AfD.  Change to keep.   Fedosin, I think the article could be improved to reflect Salam's involvement, and the actual status of those ideas in the cited literature---and please be so kind as to deemphasize your own (uncited, non-mainstream) papers, however important they are to you.   Bm gub (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * From the discussion it is seen that in Wikipedia must be the list of journals which are named bad for references. In your opinion in the article are WP:FRINGE journals. May be it so. But in WP:FRINGE I do not find the list of such journals. It leads to subjectivity,  no to objectivity in discussions about quality of references.

You quite right in that "Strong gravity" is a little-notable topic and is not in mainstream. May be anyone ready to write a *mainstream review article* on the topic. But it will very hard for me since I do not believe in modern Standard Model. The reason for it - it is the first physical theory, which have so many – about 19 unexplained parameters. I do not find in the Model viable and universal mechanism of strong forces.

My own references were limited only to explain the texts. May be it is possible to do in another way. If it necessary other users of Wikipedia can edit according to the rules. Fedosin (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The fringe list is linked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fringe_science_journals.  (I tried to link to this earlier but did it wrong.)


 * It does not matter whether you believe in the standard model or not. For the purposes of Wikipedia, you should be editing in a well-balanced and encyclopedic way that reflects the knowledge of the *field*, not that reflects your own personal views.   If you want to argue against the standard model and in favor of "strong gravity", please do so in the refereed science journals---and allow Wikipedia to report when your views have become notable there.   Bm gub (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. Fedosin (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I would replace this article with a more "encyclopedic" Bi-scale Gravity article. BEGIN SUGGESTED ARTICLE

Bi-scale Gravity

Bi-Scalar Gravity is a (non-mainstream) theoretical approach to particle confinement originally suggested by Einstein [1] where there is a cosmological scale gravity and a particle scale gravity. In the 1960's, it was taken up as an alternative to the then young QCD theory by several notable theorist including Salam (Strong Gravity) [2], Recami (Bi-metric Gravity) [3], and others. Both Salam and Recami showed that the particle level gravity approach produced confinement and asymptotic freedom, while not requiring a new force behavior (vs. 1/r2) as does QCD. Sivaram [4] gives a review of the various potentials of the strong /bi-metric gravity approach. The term Strong Gravity originally referred specifically to Salam's mathematical approach, but is now often used for any particle level gravity approach. The notations used for strong gravity are not consistent but vary with the author (e.g. sG, Gs, Γ). A basic attraction of a particle level gravity approach, in addition to not requiring a new force behavior, is that it solves the Hierarchical Problem [5,6], results in a force unification at the particle level [7], and gives a reason for the Reggie trajectory like pattern of particle masses [7,8].

String theory and the Hierarchical Problem Although string theory has had success in producing the magnitude of other particle forces, it has grossly failed to produce the value of cosmological gravity. One solution given by Arkani-Hamed [5] and Antoniadis[9], was to have strings of two scales differing by about 10^19. With this they were able to produce the cosmological gravity constant (an inter-scale value). As pointed out by Arkani-Hamed [5] and P.Caldirola, M.Pavsic & E.Recami [6] a multi-scalar approach also solves the Hierarchical Problem. Note that in this bi-string theory approach the inter-scale gravity value is a constant because it reflects the difference in the two scales. Thus "intra-scale gravity" value is not required to be constant.

Various Approaches Different authors have treated the role of the particle level gravity in a different manor. The main differences are scope (confinement only, confinement + other effects like nuclear force or the weak force) and properties (constant, variable, sourced). For example Salem [2] only treats confinement while Recami [3,10,11] treats confinement and associated strong coupling constant and the mass states bottomonium and charmonium. Stone [7] treats confinement and based on a strong gravity suggestion by Sivaram [4] makes a connection to the weak angle. Some move outside of confinement to associate strong gravity with other particle properties. Oldershaw [12] and Stone[7] connect it to the proton radius, Seshavatharam and Lakshminarayana [13] connect strong gravity to the Fermi constant and nuclear binding energy, J. Dufour [14] to the interaction of two deuterium nuclei. All of these approaches result in strong gravity values in the range of about 1028 m3 kg-1 s-2 with a variation about this value of ~ 103. Most authors treat particle level gravity as a constant while Stone [7] treats sGxmx2 (x=p, e, μ etc.) as a constant where the strong gravity source is the particle’s energy (spin angular momentum energy). Just as charge and spin couple to give the fsc (e^2/.5 ћc), Stone [7] couples the constant sGxmx2 and spin (.5 ћc/sGxmx2) to give a charged weak angle values of .2344 vs. the PDG value of .2312 This also means there is a unification of forces at the particle level.

END ARTICLE (references not included here for "brevity" but available)

In this way the basic concepts would not be lost while highlighting some of the areas of application. Other references to some of the main information (e.g. other references to Reggie trajectory behavior) by other authors can be added if applicable. If acceptable to others replacing the strong gravity article with this or similar bi-scale gravity article would be fine with me. --Robert a stone jr (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2011 (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.