User talk:JonathanD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, JonathanD, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Regards, Accurizer 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Big Wow theory

I've nominated the article Big Wow theory for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Big Wow theory satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Wow theory. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Big Wow theory during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Regards, Accurizer 02:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi JonathanD, I just wanted to say thank you for your well-reasoned contributions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Wow theory and Talk:Big Wow theory. Regards, Accurizer 12:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Universe had a diameter of the Planck length??

Hi Jonathan, please respond to my comment on Talk:Planck scale and/or adjust the text accordingly (or I can do it, if you want). Yevgeny Kats 21:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the idea of the Universe beginning with size at the Planck Scale - Here we go: I have conducted considerable research, and the story goes like this. For most of the last 40-50 years, the idea that the universe began with a size near the Planck length has been a central assumption of cosmology. This assumption has been the basis of many theories and equations, rather than the result of same. Perhaps the central equation justifying this assumption has been the relation setting the Schwartzchild radius equal to the Compton length, as they are roughly equal at the Planck scale. I am uncertain whether it was Planck or Hubble, who first voiced this view, but it quickly became a part of the standard Big Bang theory. More recent theories have called this assumption into question, but it is still a popular view among cosmologists and theoretical physicists, as it is so convenient in explaining the convergence of force magnitudes. Supersymmetry, universe on a wall theories, and some inflationary scenarios posit that the unification of forces may happen at a larger distance scale, typically near the electroweak boundary, which would allow for the possibility that the universe could be significantly larger at its inception, but there is no proof of this. I did a search on arxiv.org for papers containing the words Planck Scale and I came up with a lot more info. BTW - the majority of those papers employed the usage of Planck scale as a distance measurement, and not one of energy. Especially helpful is the following paper, which seems to explicitly state that my assumption is correct, or is widely believed in Physics today. "In the latest approaches such as Quantum Strings (or M-theory) or Quntum Gravity theories, it is generally accepted that the Planck Scale defines a minimum scale for the universe" (Several references cited here). physics/0509026 Is that good enough for you? I have a bunch more, if you still have questions, or dispute my orginal wording. I note it's been changed already, but no harm is done. I may elect to restore the reference, however, if it has been deleted entirely, as I believe my claim is proven factual. JonathanD 21:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hi Jonathan,

I will take a look at the articles that you referenced. For now, I encourage you not to abandon the project, it seems to me that you have much to offer here. There is an established dispute resolution policy in Wikipedia, you can read about it at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. However, I'm not advocating that you try a formal approach just yet – it seems somewhat early for that. I suggest that you try to disengage from the articles for a short while and take a long-term view of them. Obviously, there is no deadline here. In the mean time, perhaps consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics or one of its subprojects. There are a lot of areas where you could help! I hope this advice is helpful. I'll get back to you soon. Regards, Accurizer 12:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/n/User_talk%7EJonathanD_829f.html"