Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heisenberg's paradox

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 Speedy deleted under G5 (edits made by banned user). Hut 8.5 18:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heisenberg's paradox

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Heisenberg's paradox Articles for deletion/Heisenberg's paradoxical criterion
Heisenberg's paradox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I can't find any reference to this paradox on the internet. I am nominating for deletion per WP:OR: appears to be purely original research. nneonneo talk 00:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. Google Scholar turns up one result (and it can't be accessed); a plain Google search turns up a few results, but they all seem to refer to something more along the lines of Schrödinger's cat; JSTOR knows nothing about it. Anturiaethwr 01:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN fringe OR. There is no serious scientific question as to why there are no dineutrons; isospin was a perfectly acceptable solution, and its status as a "pure mathematical concept" (as though that was a problem) was resolved with the discovery of quark flavor. And, hey, look! The author of this page has several page creations all referenced to the same book. Bm gub (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inversion of logic in Schrödinger equation‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New de Broglie's paradox‎. Bm gub (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Original research ? That is not a theory, it is not a research. It's merely a report on a well-known fact: that Heisenberb introduced several paradoxes in physics due to the application of his strange criterion of research. The own Heisenberg recognized it. In the page 99 of the book Unification of Fundamental Forces, Heisenberg tells us that several physicts find very strange his method. Look what he wrote in that page: "I received a letter from a person saying that was a scandal to suppose that there would not exist electrons within the nuclei because it was possible to see them to leave out from there; I brought entire disorder to physics with hypothesis so nonsensical that nobody could understand my aim" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.110.3 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 21 April 2008
  • Delete agree that these all look like OR and should be deleted. Possibly a minor mention might be made in the existing articles pointing out the possible controversy, but only if it can be substantiated with reliable sources. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:OR.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious OR. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Bm gub said: “...was resolved with the discovery of quark flavor”.
The hypothesis of quark flavor does not support Heisenberg’s criterion. Unlike, the proposal of quark flavor actually deposes against Heisenberg’s criterion. Indeed, with the hypothesis of quark flavor the theorists are introducing a physical cause for explaining why the dineutron does not exist. Well, such a physical cause does not exist in the Heisenberg’s solution based on the isospin (Heisenberg's solution is against the causality principle). With the quark flavor the theorists try to get back the causality principle to physics. Therefore the own theorists recognize that Heisenberg’s solution is not acceptable, because the isospin is a pure mathematical concept, and it cannot be the cause of a phenomenon. With the introduction of the quark flavor, the theorists actually have additioned the fundamental thing missing in Heisenberg’s solution: the CAUSE of the phenomenon, which means that the own theorists recognize that Heisenberg’s solution is not satisfactory. Therefore the quark flavor reinforces the point of the article: that Heisenberg’s concept of isospin is paradoxical. Thank you for reinforcing my argument, dear Bm gub —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.61.100 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 21 April 2008
I suspect the above editor may be the same as 189.48.110.3 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) -- MightyWarrior (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The above editor is also on the same Brazilian ISP as the page creator; see [1]. Bm gub (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The anon appears to be unfamiliar with isospin and with quarks. Heisenberg's argument was quite correct, and is still taught today; replace the word "isospin" with the word "up-ness" (see Isospin#Relationship_to_flavour) to replace Heisenberg's language with quark language. Bm gub (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep MightWarrior wrote: I suspect the above editor may be the same as 189.48.110.3 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
A suspicion is not an argument. A discussion must be supported by reasonable arguments, and not by suspicions without connection with the matter under discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.48.109.27 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 April 2008
Sockpuppet One of the IPs used here (contribs) previously appeared at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantum_Ring_Theory identifying himself as W. Guglinski, sole author of the theory Bm gub (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep MightWarrior wrote: The anon appears to be unfamiliar with isospin and with quarks. Heisenberg's argument was quite correct, and is still taught today;
MightWarrior shows to be unfamiliar with the causality princile: any physical effect requires a PHYSICAL CAUSE. As said in Causality (physics) : "Despite these subtleties, causality remains an important and valid concept in physical theories. For example, the notion that events can be ordered into causes and effects is necessary to prevent causality paradoxes "
There is not a physical cause in Heisenberg's isospin: it’s a pure mathematical concept, and therefore it cannot be the cause of a physical phenomenon. It only describes the phenomenon, but it is not its cause. The fact that the isospin is taught today does not mean that Heisenberg's solution is agree to the causality principle. When Heisenberg proposed the isospin, the concept was used for explaining why there no exist nucleons like the dineutron. So, the isospin was pointed out by Heisenberg as the CAUSE why the dineutron does not exist. The relationship to flavor is a new attempt of the theorists, trying to bring back the causality to Heisenberg’s isospin.
The fact that today the theorists try to improve Heisenberg’s isospin does not eliminate the original paradox existing in his proposal. Actually such new attempt of the theorists reinforces the existence of the original paradox, since as they are proposing a new explanation implies that they recognize the original paradox in Heisenberg’s proposal (because they fell the need to bring back the causality to physics, which is missing in Heisenberg’s solution).
  • Keep Bm gub wrote: Sockpuppet One of the IPs used here (contribs) previously appeared at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Quantum_Ring_Theory identifying himself as W. Guglinski, sole author of the theory Bm gub (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Such argument makes no sense. Heisenberg's paradox has not connection with Quantum Ring Theory. Heisenberg's paradox is a violation of the causality principle. Heisenberg's paradox is not pointed out by Quantum Ring Theory, actually it is pointed by the following fact: it violates a fundamental principle of Physics—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.232.131 (talk)
Perhaps you don't understand that each editor only get's one vote. You cannot base a "keep" argument soley with the rebuttal of an accusation of sockpuppetry. Further, there seems to be an extremely common theme of grammatical errors and overusage of formatting in both the original form of the article and many of these "keep" votes. Generally anonymous votes are viewed with less weight or totally ignored by admins in determing concensus for AfD anyway. -Verdatum (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The article is titled in such a way as to seem that there is a known named concept called "Heisenberg's paradox", however, such does not appear to be the case. While I don't doubt that heisenberg has raised many paradoxical topics, naming it in this manner can be considered WP:OR. The article reads like a school essay. Because the article does not have a proper lead section, I am unable to improve it's content (beyond wikifying, and fixes to spelling and grammar). The topic fails Notability, it does not make a strong effort to define it's scope. Even with serious improvements, I cannot see any way this fits into Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep All the arguments used are based on personal suppositions. Verdatum says "in such a way as to seem that" , and "such does not appear to be", and ""While I don't doubt", and "The article reads like", "and I cannot see any way".
And Verdatum defends to delete the article because he is unable to improve it. It's rather a confission of a personal inability than a reasonable argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.237.3 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Just once I'd like you to actually sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~. And again, don't write "Keep" with every comment, each editor only gets one vote in an AfD. My argument is written in consideration of the failibility principle. I believe that no one can reasonably improve this article because it is written about a non-notable topic that is not even clearly defined. -Verdatum (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The argument WP:OR has been exhausted by many who claim the same thing everytime. Please say something different.
It has been proved, by 2+2=4, that the article is not OR. But of course that it's easy for the opposers to claim that it's OR, because they say it without exhibiting arguments. Someone can claim everything he wishes, trying to convince everybody that 2+2=5. However it's a mere opinion, not supported by any strong argument. And the aim of the discussion is not to exhibit PERSONAL OPINIONS. The aim of the discussion is to exhibit REASONABLE ARGUMENTS.
So, as already has been proved, it's not an original research, since it's not a theory, it's not a research, etc. The article calls attention to a fact well-know by many people: that Heisenberg's isospin violates a fundamental principle of Physics, the causality. Even the own Heisenberg confesses in his book that many physicists sent him letters, telling him that his method of research brought disorder to Physics (page 99 of the book Unification of Fundamental Forces, written by A. Salam, P. Dirac, and W. Heisenberg). So, the own Heisenberg confessed that the strangeness of his scientific criterion was notable among the theorists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.222.237.3 (talk) 01:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Kindly stop using sockpuppets to cast !votes, and instead, add some reliable sources to back up the claims. If it's really so obvious, someone else must've also seen it, or it is in fact original research. nneonneo talk 01:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is clearly OR and nonsense too. --Bduke (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Bduke said: ...and nonsense too
Dear Bduke, you must prove what you say. It's easy to claim that somebody says nonsense. Look, for example I can write: "Bduke says nosenses". But I would have to prove that you say nonsenses. Dont you think so?
And again, the first rule to discuss AfD: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.63.4 (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Well have got used to reading some lame stuff in Afd's. People use google and stop when they can't find anything and believe it's a hoax or OR. In this case is just they are searching for the wrong term. Search for 'Heisenberg paradox' Find sources: Heisenberg paradox – news, books, scholar, loads of stuff even describing it as "famous". Doesn't speak well for wikipedia that such thing happen so often. If wiki is to be taken seriously in science and other specialist areas topics such as this want to be top notch. FA quality documents. SunCreator (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry, those search results refer to (a) "Schrodinger's Cat", (b) Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, not to the content of this article. Bm gub (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    They seem to be the same to me, although this is not an area I'm an expert in. I will do some checking tomorrow. One question is "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle" commonly referred to as "Heisenberg paradox"? SunCreator (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    No. Even to a non-expert, the fact that the sixth Google hit is this very 24-hour-old orphan WP article should tell you that. Anyway, this article has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle; instead it makes a nonsensical objection to isospin symmetry. Bm gub (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    No? I thought you would of said yes. So those science books refer to what then? What are they talking about when they refer to 'Heisenberg paradox' in terms of quantum physics? SunCreator (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    Probably Schroedinger's Cat, a thought experiment where a cat is placed in the seemingly paradoxical state of being both dead and alive, simultaneously. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle may also be referred to as Heisenberg's paradox (though I have not seen it named as such), and which one of these is meant is usually clear from context. Neither of these are what is mentioned in this article. nneonneo talk 03:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    "these science books?" I see seven Google Scholar hits, five in econ/poli sci and two in philosophy of science; two Google Books hits, one in religion and one in poli sci. I stand by my "no", the article title is not a common term. Bm gub (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Look what has been said in the begginning of this discussion, concerning the present article: "It's merely a report on a well-known fact: that Heisenberb introduced several paradoxes in physics" . So, there are several paradoxes introduced in Physics, because Heisenberg used to state things disproved by experiments, as the case of the electron's trajectory within the chamber fog. The own Heisenberg confessed that his method introduced controversy in the theoretical research, as he tell us in his book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.149.63.4 (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Cross Posted from the other two afds Whoever keeps making comments about this article being mathematical and therefore not research is missing the point. The WP:OR policy is not designed to prevent editors from gathering data and drawing conclusion from them. It is not designed to enjoin editors against a specific activity. It is designed to prevent material that is novel and unique from being introduced into wikipedia. So, even though the proof that (for example) e is irrational requires nothing more than knowledge and applications of the properties of real numbers, it does not belong in wikipedia unless we are summarizing a treatment from an outside source. The inherent validity of the claim is not what makes it research or not. Empirical claims are no different from theoretical claims as far as wikipedia is concerned--even though there is a gulf between them philosophically. You seem to be capable of understanding the mathematical implications of these articles, so let's make sure you can understand the implications of our arguments. Your defense is based on an incorrect connotation of the word research. You interpret research to mean non-tautological results from empirical data. For one, that isn't strictly true. For another thing, that is not how wikipedia defines research. I know I'm being repetitive, but I need to make sure this point is clear. If I need to be even more elementary, let me. the research is not the creation of the theoretical result (in this case, the paradox) from axioms. The research is the revelation of that result to the world. Regardless of the inherent truth of any theoretical claim, someone, somewhere has to reveal it. The policy of wikipedia is that the revelation not occur here first. Provide a clear, cited source that reveals the paradox and shows that it is notable, then you can keep the article. Until then, no dice. Protonk (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment As I'm sure many have noticed, all of the ISPs arguing to "keep" on this page are single purpose ISPs whose only edits have been to post to this and related AfD's and as such can be disregarded. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. User with IP address, please provide ISBN number of the book(s) and precise page(s) where claim has been made. One needs to check these books in the library. It is entirely possible that the claims have been made in old book(s), but they can not be found in the internet. Strictly speking, we should follow WP:AGF. If this user provides direct citation with pages, we should believe him unless someone goes in libary and discovers that there is no such source. But the article is terrible. Biophys (talk) 14:57, 22 April 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.