Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravitational radiation of atom

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gravitational radiation of atom

There are oodles of fundamental errors and misunderstadnings. The potential is wrong, inner electrons screen the potential. There are no terms for spin-orbit coupling, no fine/hyperfine structure of any kind. These are approx 10^40 greater in magnitude than any effect from gravitation. And the whole thing is presented non-relativistically, which is wrong for high-Z, and generally misleading. In its current form, I think the article is beyond repair. linas 16:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, of course. linas 16:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. --Ghirlandajo 16:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable. It may not be obvious to everyone from what Linas wrote above, but the other corrections being "10^40 greater in magnitude" means that this is undetectable in the sense that you could never find a particular penny in a billion billion billion copies of the U.S. National Debt. We don't have the technology, we won't have the technology for countless centuries, and it's not important anyway. There is no visible effect, and no deep knowledge to be gained from this idea--we don't need an article on this. -- SCZenz 16:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - agree with SCZenz; this is insignificant and the physics is incomplete. — Laura Scudder | Talk 16:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. My first impression was to delete since the effect is so small, but I am reluctant to take drastic action before somebody checks the reference, which suggests that it is published in the proceedings of a conference which seems to be serious. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I've seen, and read, similar conference proceedings which are of equal stature, containing "proofs" that special relativity is wrong, etc. so I don't consider publication alone to be a reasonable standard. And even if the conference presentation was by Ed Witten, this article fails to convey what's meaningful & interesting. (Its even mis-titled; as there is no discussion of gravitational radiation.) linas 18:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As Pjacobi points out on Talk:Gravitational radiation of atom, the last sentence is wrong and the rest is irrelevant. Gravitational radiation is a relativistic phenomenon, so you cannot discuss it without discussing relativity (please tell me if I'm wrong; I'm not a physicist). The author's website it at http://www.webfinder.ru/vm/ (in Russian) and the same text as Gravitational radiation of atom can be found at http://www.webfinder.ru/vm/abstract1.html . His resume is, uhm, unconventional for people visiting GR conferences. I'm now even more curious on the reference. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if possible to improve and contextualise. Reference is valid - see [1] but that alone doesn't make it notable. Dlyons493 19:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one mentioning in a conference proceedings isn't enough to establish relevance. No V V Mikheev to be found on the preprint servers. And of course the effect is incredibly small, even smaller than calculated in the article, as that calculation is all wrong. --Pjacobi 19:18, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Karol 07:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)Keep or merge with gravitational radiation. The page needs massive reformatting and wikification. It's also inexact (plain wrong is maybe too harsh?) in a few places and the calculations are questionable, and relativistic effects are neglected. All this, however, still doesn't mean that the article should be deleted, I believe, since it describes an actual physical effect, albeit unimaginably small (we have articles on many physical phenomenon that we can't really measure or which are only hypothetical). Lack of references also is not a reason for deletion is it? Therefore we should let it stay, put up the appropriate warnings, and wait for improvement. An alternative would be to merge with gravitational radiation. Maybe I'm missing something or wrong, though? Karol 20:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree with merge. The article doesn't describe radiation, it describes corrections to hydrogen energy levels. Also, look at the comment from the anon who created the article--it implies that he is the person cited. Doesn't that make it original research...? -- SCZenz 21:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, this being an "actual physical effect" doesn't make it notable. Nor does appearing once in a conference somewhere. Does every paper published by every physicist (even the ones with tenure and funding at universities) get a wikipedia article? Nope, and it shouldn't. Can you explain what might possibly make this notable? -- SCZenz 21:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Where can I see this comment? Yes, the article does not describe radiation per se, but it should, at leasts that is what the name of the page suggests. Karol 21:58, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, this being an "actual physical effect" doesn't make it notable. Nor does appearing once in a conference somewhere. Does every paper published by every physicist (even the ones with tenure and funding at universities) get a wikipedia article? Nope, and it shouldn't. Can you explain what might possibly make this notable? -- SCZenz 21:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't think of any argument. You are probably right, it is NN. Karol 21:58, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete; highly speculative and non-notable. The bar for having something in a conference proceedings is extremely low. It is not an "actual physical effect", it is a "contentious, non-notable speculation". Sdedeo 21:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Since gravity is pretty much irrelevant on atomic and subatomic scale, the article has no use. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per other delete voters. Quale 05:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to the arguments the other delete voters had madeSalsb
• strong delete as crude nonsense (kind of like an article describing the phlogiston theory as an established theory in the chemistry pages) CH (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.