Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GEM unification theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete as non-notable fringe theory and probably original research. Sandstein (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GEM unification theory

GEM unification theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Parochial, non-notable idea that is basically original research. In fact, the idea is held by only one guy (Brandenburg) who is apparently going around Wikipedia blasting his wares to gain notoriety for his fringe theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable fringe outgrowth of Plasma Cosmology. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Here is my original argument: I'd like a second opinion, but I strongly suspect this topic is not notable. It seems to be the baby of one man, who tends to publish in obscure places. Where is the mention of this theory in a text book or a review paper? Where are the critical commentaries and extensions or even objections to this theory in peer reviewed journals? Maybe it is serious science, but if it is so new that it has not yet attracted significant attention from the scientific community, then it has no place in Wikipedia. Art Carlson (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This theory gives the value of the gravitation constant! It is the only published theory that does so. Has all the community of string theory done this??? It is part of Plasma Cosmology, the article is heavily referenced with peer reviewed references, including its presentation Coral Gables in 2003, to Noble prize winners. Is Wikipedia to be only a forum for the the mainstream? The blessed? The consensus view? The fully funded? Or is to be a democratic forum where alternative views can be presented as well as the standard ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.91.173 (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC) — 75.100.91.173 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
    Comment - Wikipedia is not a forum. And you will find many notable alternative views here, along with their criticisms. Plvekamp (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    The rather lengthy article fails to explain where the formula for rp comes from, and one might suspect that it was concocted specifically to produce that "result". — DAGwyn (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    I think Art Carlson's comments above are persuasive. While Plasma cosmology had a notable role in the history of cosmology, there's no evidence that this "unification theory" has had any impact on the scientific community whatsoever. There is a place on Wikipedia for notable non-mainstream views, but it is certainly not a forum for anyone with a few little-cited papers and a website. Do you have information about the impact of GEM unification theory that we're not aware of? -- SCZenz (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe this theory is based on tested data and has already been published. This is the perfect subject for a WikI. please disregard the rants of the power of 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.5.46 (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read Wikpedia policy on WP:Notability before stating your opinion here: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Mere publication is not sufficient. And please sign your posts (simply insert four tildes at the end, like this: ~~~~), so that we can keep track of who is saying what, especially in a discussion like this. Art Carlson (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Read what and weep? What are we supposed to glean from that article? Protonk (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That space.com interviewed some wackos at a conference, I guess. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Crackpot science. Hits every warning sign. It's poorly received it's covered in poplar press and not peer-reviewed press (in any significant fashion. It has OUTRAGEOUS claims which, if true, would make this discussion for deletion silly. It relies on mostly algebraic manipulations: despite the subject matter nothing is expressed as a vector quantity, no dimensional analysis is done. What does the claim about a more accurate evaluation of G even MEAN? There is no testable proposition given. There is no evidence given that this is anything. And whay does it mean to say the equation is 'inverted' in this sense? Also, the Dirac large number hypothesis is not a very strong basis for this. The original notion from Dirac is a little shaky, and further extrapolation is total fringe. I mean, read the article and visualize what it actually means to use it in the GEM article. It's crackpot, all the way. Protonk (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    While it does smack of crackpot science, it's not as obviously so as most such theories. It should be evident that a genuine prediction of G from first principles would be testable. The meaning of "inverted" is obvious to me: rp = f(G) inverts to G = f − 1(rp).
  • Fair enough. I've struck the specific statement. Protonk (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep See talk (there is more behind the person Brandenburg). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.48.201.232 (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC) — 91.48.201.232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. <-- Moved by Protonk (talk) in order to thread the comment properly so it doesn't come above the nomination. Protonk (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete My concerns are less with the validity of the theory and more with notability and balance. Even a massively failed theory such as phlogiston can be notable for encyclopedic purposes, due to their significance in the scientific debate. Also, this article is not about Brandenburg the physicist, its about GEM the theory. Statements like 'B is a great guy and entertaining lecturer' or 'B is a crackpot' are completely irrelevant. No, the crux of the matter in my opinion is that this theory has received very little attention in journals - it's hard to find any material by anyone other than one man (doesn't matter who that one man is, just the fact that it's only one man). Also, the article doesn't show much critical comment, which I believe is mandatory for a non-mainstream theory. I couldn't find any critical comment on the web for the simple reason that hardly anyone is talking about it, other than a couple adherents. If this theory starts receiving more notice from the scientific community, positive or negative, I might change my mind. As it stands at present, though, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. (I listed the few references I could find on the talk page. I only found a couple more references, which weren't significant.) Plvekamp (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Neither me nor scienceapolgist are attacking the physicist. I couldn't care less. He's probably a great guy. I'm sure he goes to church or helps the poor or whatever. My point is that the article is a presentation of a theory that rings false to me. there are not really significant secondary sources (sources that aren't papers from Brandenburg) covering it, so the substance becomes an issue. Protonk (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Ok, I can't make as strong a claim for the both of us, but I'm certainly not attacking him as a person. Protonk (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem. I was just trying to make sure it was clear that the argument was not personal. Adherents of WP:FRINGE theories frequently take it that way, and I wanted to defuse that immediately. Plvekamp (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Cool, thanks for that. Protonk (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with the concern about lack of notability. The theory may or may not have some merit, but we don't need to (and shouldn't) try to decide that. — DAGwyn (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment by the author: The symbol rp stands for the Planck length and is in its conventional form, I have added a link to that page, to make this more clear. I have also added the specific criticisms voiced by other physicists at conferences where it has been presented. The basic criticism is that GEM treats the proton as a fundamental particle , when according to the Standard Model it is a composite body made of quarks. The author has no problem with the standard model, it is just that the math turns out that way. This stems from the the Dirac large numbers hypothesis ,which features the proton mass. This problem is being addressed, but has hindered consideration of GEM theory by the mainsteam physics community. However, the cosmolgy which results from GEM is a Big Bang followed by a continually inflationary cosmology. Kind of like a light bulb turning on and then burning continuosly. It is only a plasma cosmology because it couples EM scales to the cosmos at its largest scale , the Hubble radius itself. I appreciate the critics of my GEM article efforts to avoid "ad homimen" arguments. --Deepthought137 (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepthought137 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete---please note the author's comment (below) from his talk page; this is an admission that the topic is NN but that its author hopes for it to be notable someday. Because all authors feel that way, we have a policy to sort them out. Bm gub (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • (from User_talk:Deepthought137) I have decided to make the theory either "famous or infamous" by the end of this year. I will be presenting the theory to the physics community again, in its newest form at the American Physical Society Meeting in Portland Oregon may 15-17. I also have submitted yet another article it to International Journal of Theoretical Physics, and I am awaiting refree reports. I am working to maximize press coverage of this, so if you see headlines (hopefully good) and also hear the predicatable cries of "Bah Humbug!" from my learned colleages in the string theory community, you will know I have succeeded. If this happens, where best for the eager public to gain basic knowledge of the theory that to look it up on Wikipedia?

  • Keep. This article includes 10+ references to scientific articles, and the subject is notable (even if the theory is questionable), because this is about most fundamental laws of nature.Biophys (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Look up what "notable" means in Wikipedia: WP:N. --Art Carlson (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Biophys, how does a theory being "about" something notable automatically make it notable? And do you believe that any theory which has a few papers by one author is automatically suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia? -- SCZenz (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2008 (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.