Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaotic gravitational waves

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 5, 2005 19:18 (UTC)

[edit] Chaotic gravitational waves

Appears to be someone's pet quantum gravity theory. The paper cited looks good, but has no bearing on the article's claims, making the article original research. Despite requests, no supporting documentation has been forthcoming for the article's claims about a gravitational "uncertainty principle" and claims that this "reconciles the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics".--Christopher Thomas 16:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as a references have been added and this article is necessary to balance the view that quantum gravity is the only way to resolve the conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. If there may be gravitational explanations of quantum phenomena, a balanced presentation is needed. (unsigned comment by 216.15.32.45)
  • Considering that anyone can post an abstract on astro-ph, this isn't very compelling. Hunter Monroe just appears to be spamming this paper everywhere. It hasn't been published in any peer-reviewed journal. I consider it highly suspect until it is. --Etacar11 01:03, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sock puppet watch: this is 216.15.32.45 (talk • contribs)'s 6th edit.

Additionally, while this does appear to be the paper that the text of the article was based on, it still is of questionable notability. The paper was published on arxiv (lax submission standards compared to the more respected printed journals), and citations to it from elsewhere haven't (yet) been shown. As it seems to pull section 3 (on which the article is based) out of thin air, without providing the math to back up its statements about uncertainty, I doubt many researchers will have taken this seriously enough to respond to it, much less cite it, but anon is welcome to continue trying to dig up supporting papers. It at least took care to note that it was making an _analogy_ to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which the article doesn't adequately distinguish. --Christopher Thomas 01:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Shennanigans alert - The first draft of the arxiv paper dates from 21 June 2005. The article was created on 22 June 2005. There's probably a violation or two of self-promotion guidelines happening here. --Christopher Thomas 01:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research (formal vote).--Christopher Thomas 16:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Christopher Thomas. Quale 17:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — "relativistic gravitational waves" makes no sense to me. They already travel at the speed of light. To be credible, the article needs a reference to the individual(s) (physicist?) proposing this idea, and I see none. — RJH 17:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yeah, original research. --Etacar11 01:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• MoveIf anything this article is misplaced as part of quantum gravity. The subject is more classical Chaos theory than quantum gravity. To people who have studied statistical mechanics and chaos in detail this is not original reserch in fact it seems to me that this article is old news. --Hfarmer 08:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First I am not the author of the page in question I do however have a strong interest in the matter at hand.

What would it take for you to not think this is original research? A physical reviwe D-15 article specifically about the effects of the brownian motion of distant unseen objects on hypothetical measureing equipment? That is all the article refer's to, brownian motion of experimental equipment due to random gravitational waves. The article itself is almost compleatly classical in it's physics. If anything this article should be moved to a page dealing with Classical Chaos theoryinstead of quantum gravity.

--Hfarmer 08:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would take a paper talking about the specific points in the article, which you grossly understate by labelling them "Brownian motion". The author specifically claims that they derive an "uncertainty principle", and that the idea of chaotic gravitational waves "reconciles the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics". Brownian motion does neither (you can still measure where the object is, measuring its position or momentum doesn't perturb its position or momentum substantially, and Brownian motion has no relation to unifying gravitation and quantum mechanics). For that matter, the Brownian motion arxiv paper doesn't mention or rely on _chaos_, either, so I'm having trouble seeing why you want to file it there.--Christopher Thomas 15:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Change my vote to Delete. Here is why... Well it would be nice if the author of the actual paper would visit his article and support it. I cannot provide that. let us assume for a second that this is all above board and this person is a physicist of some standing. Say a university professor. I took a course in Statistical physics and chaos from such a person last semsester. If the author is much like the professor I took this that course from ( which is why I provided textbooks as backup for the article) then all of this seems so obvious to him that he could not imagine anyone having serious questions on the matter. That must be why the person who wrote this will not defend their work. They may not realize that it would be in question. As for any jerk accusing me of using the "sockpuppet" technique compare my editing style say in the Loop quantum gravity article. A week or so I rewrote it to get rid of the flamewar that the article itself had turned into. People seem to like it. Does this new article which usees NO Wiki code or Latex look likesomething I would do?

--Hfarmer 28 June 2005 04:39 (UTC)

• Nothing I've seen shows that this Hunter Monroe person has any standing in the physics community, it appears that he works at the International Monetary Fund. Of course, lots of physicists work in finance, but I've seen nothing explaining the credentials of this guy. (Feel free to present something, of course) And as for his reason for not coming back and defending it...lots of people spam stuff to wiki and then never come back to say a word when it's up for deletion. That always speaks volumes about the item in question's importance. --Etacar11 28 June 2005 04:56 (UTC)

• Delete original research. Arxiv entry does not count as an encyclopedia-worthy subject. (I would think that publication and some citations should be necessary before subject can be considered as ready for an encyclopedia.) This is not the place for a scietific peer review, in fact, if one is needed, then that clearly says that the article is original research. Bambaiah June 28, 2005 10:22 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.