Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Mathematics/2015 September 26

= September 26 =

Quantum Fields Fluctuations, Time stop
Quantum Fields Fluctuations, Time stop is a newly created article that I found while going through CAT:CSD; it was incorrectly tagged as a test page, and I couldn't immediately think of another criterion that applied. (1) What is this talking about? Is it at least partly sensible, or is it pure gibberish? (2) Is there already an article on this topic, and if so, what is it? If possible, I'd like to use an A10 speedy deletion to save time (I can't imagine this being an appropriate article) instead of sending it to AFD. Nyttend (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd call it CSD G1: Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confusing that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it.  Unless things have changed since the last time I looked, a speedy deletion is done "without prejudice", so if it's a mistake, it can be corrected later. --Trovatore (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure where that quote comes from; G1 is "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history". I can understand the words (just not what they're being used to mean), and anyway I wonder if a reasonable person familiar with maths might be able to make a good deal of sense out of it.  I was wondering if it were somehow related to relativity-caused time dilation?  Nyttend (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See the link to Patent nonsense. It's the second clause in the definition.  The abridgment on the CSD page reduces it to "incoherent" and "no meaningful content", but the linked page explains more fully how those terms are intended. --Trovatore (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As to your other point: If you put unlimited effort into it, you can make some sort of sense out of just about anything, but at some point it's coming more from you than from the text.  G1 is not for just plain bad writing, but I think the author bears a burden of making sure you can tell whether you're really interpreting their content or just letting it inspire you to make something up.  It's not a bright line.  That's why it's "without prejudice" (no DRV required to fix a mistake). --Trovatore (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We may note that the first of the authorities listed at the bottom is homonymous with the contributor. —Tamfang (talk) 08:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The other two references are textbooks that are commonly used in introductory quantum field theory courses.
 * The article isn't utter gibberish; the heavily mathematical part looks a lot like a standard QFT calculation. It is, at the very least, original research that shouldn't be published on Wikipedia. -- BenRG (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the article for deletion via Articles for deletion. If anyone thinks that it should be speedied rather than deleted after seven days, they can go ahead and nominate it for speedy deletion.  If anyone can fix it in seven days, they can fix it in seven days.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It was speedy-deleted under A11 as original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)