Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum aetherdynamics

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Verbal (talk | contribs) at 09:29, 12 March 2009 (delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Quantum aetherdynamics

Quantum aetherdynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is original research, with no independent coverage. All material relating to this theory comes from self-published books and articles; there is no sign that anybody other than the two authors has ever referred to this theory. Looie496 (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To some, being an amateur yet still succeeding in a field is a badge to be worn with pride. If professional physicists are so great, howcome they haven't found the theory of everything? Remember that Einstein was also an amateur working outside the clique of academe! And Wikipedia isn't just about what professionals say, else there wouldn't be so many articles on anime. PhysicsExplorer (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I implied that amateurs are inferior to professionals, or that Wikipedia shouldn't listen to amateurs, as neither of these was my intention. Indeed, Wikipedia is largely a creation of amateurs who have pulled of something more popular than well financed encyclopedia publishers have managed. What I'm looking for is the verification that the authors are "succeeding in the field." Or more humbly, that they are at least being noticed. If their book has not been reviewed by reliable sources, or at least garnered media attention, then their work is not notable. So you see, the validity of their work doesn't matter, nor should it, as Wikipedia editors are not in the business of deciding what the correct theory of everything is. Instead, we are just trying to limit our coverage of theories of physics to those that are noteworthy. And if no reliable sources have reviewed this theory, then we have no way of distinguishing it from the whole body of crank physics book out there. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-professional contributions to science are sometimes covered in Wikipedia if they are widely commented upon by mainstream sources. Which is not the case here. A theory needs to be well-regarded by somebody besides its own inventors. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of the level of professionalism involved there are no independent sources; everything is self-published. Ironholds (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that the work is reliably sourced, and is notable in that it has been commented upon by, inter alia:
  • Arthur C. Clarke, who had the decency to admit that it was 'way over his head'
  • Professor VV Raman of the Rochester Institute of Technology, reviewer of the likes of Dawkins and Penrose, who wrote of the book Secrets of the Aether that it is 'highly original...deserves careful attention before passing judgment'
  • Dr. Phil Risby of the University of London who said that it may hold the key to a new level of understanding
  • James Jacobs, creator of Helical Geometry, who is constructing a version of quantum aetherdynamics' Helicoid Torus Model
In addition:
  • The work was featured in Infinite Energy magazine, volume 12, issue 69
  • The authors were invited to present their paper at the Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory conference hosted by Professor M. C. Duffy of the University of Sunderland, at a venue in Imperical College, London
  • And it was also selected to be beamed into space as part of the the second ever email to the Galactic Internet...jokes aside, it was broadcast as a part of the Cosmic Call 2003 program from a powerful satellite dish in the Ukraine.
Thus I would submit that while the mainstream media might not publish much about this sort of thing (you don't read too many articles about topos theory in your daily tabloid either) it is at least relatively notable within its highly specialised field. PhysicsExplorer (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And do you have any evidence to back these claims up? Ironholds (talk) 05:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. PhysicsExplorer (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
..and can you provide it? Ironholds (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that there's enough media coverage to justify notability: see 1, 2, 3, and 4. However, this only establishes notability, it doesn't establish reliable sources that back up what the article is saying. Therefore, I'd have to say delete. Matt (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an article in the Northwest Herald of McHenry County, Illinois, a press release, another press release, and a self-published book whose author can't spell very well. Doesn't establish notability in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's the notability established, then. Remember that the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Hence, it doesn't matter if the theory is true or not, it matters only whether the article gives an accurate description of what quantum aetherdynamics is about. Thus, as long as all claims made by the theory are contextualised as such, and not as statements of truth, then they can be included. At a minimum, surely the article (and to be honest this would require a rewrite) could include only and all the information mentioned in the third party sources you give above (and the others that exist)?
The solution seems to be to rework the article so that it includes the right sort of information, and not just delete it out of hand. PhysicsExplorer (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantum_aetherdynamics&oldid=276712006"