Talk:Toroidal ring model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have not completed my work on this page, but insist that the paragraph on Winston H. Bostick is very relevant to the subject since it makes a case for a finite-size particle. I don't know who deleted it, but would appreciate having a copy of the deleted text. Furthermore the labelling of Parson's Magneton as obsolete is an opinion, not a fact. Whoever made the changes is not conforming to neutrality, which I understand is an important guideline for wikipedia. I have done my utmost to present both sides on any debatable issue, an stick to the facts. Whoever deleted my material is not playing by these rules.

Greg Volk

Hello Greg, I'm responsible for the deletion. Deleted text can always be accessed by clicking the "history" tab on the top of any article, then clicking on the date corresponding to the version you want. The fact that the toroidal-ring model is "obsolete" is supported (both in the Wikipedia-specific sense and the scientific sense) by the complete and utter lack of peer-reviewed literature, citations, or discussion of the topic. There are no peer-reviewed journal articles arguing for the current relevance of the model; there are no mainstream journal articles arguing that it solves some flaw in quantum mechanics; there are no articles presenting predictions for this model and comparing them to data. I'm aware that there are *non-mainstream* sources, namely "common sense science", which make this argument, and (perhaps) William Bostick's articles ... which did not appear in a mainstream journal, but rather in Physics Essays, whose whole reason-for-existing is to publish non-mainstream articles without checking them for accuracy. Being self-published, non-peer-reviewed, etc., these sources are treated (both by academia and by Wikipedia) as "original research"; the relevant policy is discussed at WP:OR and WP:RS. If this policy were not in place, Wikipedia would have competing articles saying Einstein was right/wrong/a fraud/a plagiarist, the Earth is round/flat/cubic, perpetual motion is impossible/real/suppressed-by-the-oil-industry/ on-the-verge-of-a-breakthrough-in-my-basement-if-you-will-please-invest-$100,000, and so on. If the ring electron model were a debateable issue, the debate would have occured on the pages of Physical Review, not on the Web pages of one side.Bm gub 14:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Greg! The "theory" section is much improved by being in the past tense, thanks for making the change. I am still a bit concerned that the article mixes ideas from Parson et. al. with fringe ideas from Bostick and/or the "Common Sense Science" people; does the original model really argue for an "odd number of fibers, probably three"? These issues would be clearer if you could give more detailed citations in this section. Bm gub 22:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)