156:
the website in response to the accusation of "advertising" it, but after reading SupaSoldier's comments, have decided to reinsert it. This work was first published in Los Alamos in 1979 and encouraged by Carlo Rubbia of CERN at that time (before he got his Nobel Prize). Documentation for this is available. As to refereed articles, the masters thesis describing this concept was an interdepartmental (Philosophy of
Science & Physics) research project at the University of New Mexico. George Gamow was instrumental in providing the interaction of the charged sub-quantal components which, incidentally, rotate 360 degrees per cycle providing a resultant charge of zero. (The annihilation process is also used in Positron Emission Tomography.)
846:“incorrect crackpot model” and “pseudophysics” are not reasons for deletion. Knowledge (XXG) covers pseudoscience, discredited or obscure theories, as long as they are attributable. It is unfortunate that the article appears to describe what the “author thinks” as opposed to what the secondary sources describe, but we can try to encourage him to change his style. There are sources corresponding to the title, although its not clear how the article content connects to the title. A second new contributor has now expressed an intention to improve the article. We should give them time to do this, and failing the emergence of attributable and sensible content, merge the article with photon.
133:
Non-notable crackpot theory; reference is to single web page consisting of about 100 lines of text and two diagrams. No refereed journal articles; no published journal articles; no online articles of any sort (the web page invites you to "order the academic manuscript" for $ 2.95+S&H). Still
824:
crackpot model of the photon. The author thinks that the photon is made up of a bound electron-positron pair, that this explains e+e- pair production and annihilation, and that it photon wavelength relates somehow to some sort of magnetohydrodynamic waves in plasma. Please stop thinking of this as
381:
I'm giving this advice so that you can try to rework it (quickly!) and we can all see if it's salvageable. I think a major problem with the article is that it doesn't make it clear to non-scientists exactly what it's all about. Quite honestly, the article is pretty incoherent at this stage. I've had
155:
All physical descriptions in this article are verifiable physical characteristics of the photon and any hypotheses referred to on the PhotonStructure.com website were omitted for this reason. I would suggest the so-called experts go back to the standard texts. Next entry: I had deleted the link to
692:
I just studied the article, and chased down some references. I concluded that most of the content was unverified assertion or gibberish, and I cleaned it accordingly. However, the concept of "photon structure" is clearly serious. The article should not be deleted for not being notable. Due to
616:
Yes, that was my concern as well, which is why I've been trying to point out that proof of outside scientific review is needed, not just what appears to be self-published sources. I've tried to give helpful advice for improving the article, but it is really incumbent upon him and not us to do it.
969:
Im going to re-write it so that its about the internal structure of photons (as one would expect). I dont know what its supposed to be about (the process of turning a photon into 2 pair particles maybe??). Ive expanded on this on the articles talk page. Any comments/suggestions are welcome.
810:
get it, but do not understand how a rotational frequency would yield an amplitude associated with wave motion...that info is just not here. Still, I'll admit I'm frustrated by how much good material gets deleted without a proper look and I've been heartened by this discussion. Please give the
756:
All physical descriptions in this article are verifiable physical characteristics of the photon and any hypotheses referred to on the PhotonStructure.com website were omitted for this reason. I would suggest the so-called experts go back to the standard texts. (this unsigned edit was by
688:
All physical descriptions in this article are verifiable physical characteristics of the photon and any hypotheses referred to on the PhotonStructure.com website were omitted for this reason. I would suggest the so-called experts go back to the standard
706:
Electron-positron annihilation is not an approprite redirect; photon structure happens to be studied in e-p colliders, but not in annihilations---you'd do equally well looking at it in non-annihilating e-e colliders, if such existed. I'd stick with
382:
some courses in physics years ago, so some of the concepts are vaguely familiar. Other concepts are over my head. Here I am trying to reword what I understand of the article. Feel free to use this in the rewriting, and to correct me if I'm wrong.
484:. Upon rereading the references, it seems as if the most recent references are by the same person who wrote the Knowledge (XXG) article. While I'm not disputing his authority in the matter, I think that Knowledge (XXG) requires
805:
as per SmokeyJoe. I have been watching this article and still do not believe it would be suitable material for an undergraduate particle physics student to make sense of, let alone suitable encyclopedia material. I
528:. I'm saying "Week keep" for now, in the hope that the article will better explain just what it is talking about, though if these concerns aren't addressed, I will likely choose to merge it with either
949:
just summarized it pretty well. The "references" cited don't actually demonstrate that this is a way to "resolve particle/wave duality". It's a bit like writing an article saying that UFOs come from
873:, Bm gub, please say so, but it is safe to assume many at Wiki are at least as intelligent as you. My objection to this article is that it does not state anything clearly, and have asked for a
454:
The article also needs external references that postdate the theory. It sounds as if the theory was published in 1979, right? There should be third-party references to it that are more recent.
201:: I can't even make out what this article is about. It almost seems as if the original poster copied the text, and the references are all mashed together. It has no sources that I can tell.
171:
I cannot find any evidence of your 1979 paper in Google nor in my large university library; even the publisher (journal?) "Maaret DeGroff" gets zero hits. Please supply a standard citation.
442:
2. When an electron and a positron collide, they produce two gamma rays of 0.5108 MeV, each one exactly half of the "pair formation threshold". (particles becoming energy or waves)
119:
745:
I've got to be honest - I'm biased because I know how to reconcile the wave particle duality (using real physics) - and this is not it - but neither is it anything else
568:
Almost all of the references listed were published years, even decades before the apparent first mention of the theory elucidated in the article, i.e. before 1979. --
791:
I suggest giving the author some limited tolerance and time to learn to write an acceptable article. I do urge him to base his contributions on the references.
957:, and then citing astronomical journal articles which give Europa's mass, composition and distance from Earth while crowing, "See, my article has sources!"
731:. As it stands the article is content-free. I can well believe that previously it was OR and gibberish. In any case it does not deserve a separate article.
127:
Incoherent, no scientific content. It may be possible to write a WP-level article about photon substructure, but this isn't even a stub in that direction.
185:
your hypothesis---Nisius, for example, shows agreement between the
Standard Model (i.e. quantum field theory) photon structure functions and data.
415:, from gamma rays to ultraviolet to visible light to infrared to radio waves. If this is the case, then the photons here must refer to gamma rays.
356:
per SmokeyJoe. Not only is there no harm in keeping the history, and some possible benefit, but it would be a useful redirect to have anyway.
92:
87:
661:
96:
17:
79:
677:
694:
274:
771:
Verifiable is not good enough. You have to verify using specific citations, given the specific nature of your assertions.
693:
lack of content, a redirect is a good idea. Given the image, and the method for study, perhaps the appropriate target is
411:, depending on what is being looked at. The article seems to use the word "light" in the broader sense of anything in the
308:: I sort of think that a person with the sense to pick through the history for the good stuff probably doesn't need it.
520:. The article needs extensive rewriting, and more explicit (and better formatted) references to make it understood that
215:
989:
656:
36:
459:
If these concerns are addressed, and addressed quickly, I may be persuaded to switch back to keeping the article. --
280:
232:
642:
This article is salvagable. If cleaned it can be useful. It is notable enough for an article if it can be better.
825:
a badly-written article about photons. It's actually a reasonably clear article about a work of pseudophysics.
988:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
412:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
974:
961:
930:
885:
850:
829:
815:
795:
782:
775:
765:
749:
735:
715:
701:
684:
666:
632:
611:
599:
583:
563:
551:
474:
376:
362:
344:
332:
312:
300:
241:
228:
doesn't deal with "photon structure" at all & what it does deal with is covered more coherently elswhere.
220:
189:
146:
67:
51:
651:
139:
83:
774:
If you have references at PhotonStructure.com, then bring them here. PhotonStructure.com itself is not a
142:, accounts for pair production and annihilation perfectly well, and has passed every experimental test.)
625:
576:
544:
496:
467:
517:
392:
254:
758:
159:
75:
57:
681:
607:-- Nonsense. Appears to only have been created to advertise the editor's external web-site page. --
174:
A philosophy-of-science Master's thesis is *not* generally noteworthy evidence for a science article.
618:
569:
537:
489:
460:
915:
762:
673:
907:
643:
608:
162:
Moved to below header by bmonreal. TimLong2001, please add comments at the bottom of the page.)
778:, and is so poorly written that it is not good enough even to be listed as “further reading”.
253:. Quite incomprehensible, maybe someone can salvage some information from it and Merge it with
329:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
617:
Especially because I guess most of us (OK, me) don't quite grasp what is being said there. --
950:
371:
309:
211:
525:
485:
971:
357:
882:
847:
812:
792:
779:
698:
560:
297:
235:
48:
954:
596:
259:
151:
Yes, this is a deterministic representation but is in line with QED rather than QCD.
958:
927:
757:
71.213.150.27, a user whose WP edits overlap closely with those of article creator
746:
428:
325:
113:
946:
826:
811:
author 'some limited tolerance and time to learn' as per SmokeyJoe. Thanks. --
732:
712:
341:
202:
186:
143:
128:
64:
524:
has been discussed throughout the scientific community, and that it isn't just
923:
911:
238:
424:
408:
370:. I'm cleaning the article up right now, please give this article a chance!
229:
486:
some sort of third-party published review or mention of scientific theories
508:. I've read over the article, and it doesn't make it clear whether or not
436:
432:
431:(so-called "pair formation threshold") will spontaneously split into an
257:? Though, I didn't really understand either article so I'm not sure. --
870:
63:(comments placed here by TimLong have been moved one paragraph down.
878:
708:
533:
400:
353:
321:
293:
404:
396:
982:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
711:, where it'd be reasonable to write a few sentences about it.
526:
original research that hasn't been reviewed by outside analysts
420:
Two observations that form the basis of this theory are:
296:. Content may be salvageable. History should be kept.
449:
At this point, I can't follow the rest. Am I even close?
109:
105:
101:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
992:). No further edits should be made to this page.
820:The reason you don't "get it" is that it is an
881:so that the history is saved. Kind regards, --
8:
138:. ( The mainstream theory of the photon,
559:The references included published works!
516:a theory meant to address the paradox of
340:- there is nothing here worth salvaging.
439:. (energy or waves becoming particles)
512:is a theory or not. I assume that it
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
761:. Moved from top of discussion by
678:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (science)
672:This discussion has been added as a
24:
488:in order to ensure notability. --
427:with an energy level of 1.0216
922:is anything but a cabinet for
695:Electron-positron annihilation
1:
403:can show properties of both
49:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider)
168:TimLong2001, three points:
1009:
676:to the proposed guideline
503:05:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
181:references in the article
975:12:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
962:23:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
931:23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
886:23:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
851:00:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
830:15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
816:09:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
796:01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
783:01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
766:19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
750:17:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
736:15:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
716:04:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
702:03:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
685:01:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
667:03:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
633:14:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
612:14:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
600:12:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
584:14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
564:03:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
552:05:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
475:14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
391:is an attempt to explain
377:17:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
363:15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
345:15:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
333:15:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
313:13:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
301:11:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
242:08:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
221:01:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
190:15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
158:(unsigned comment was by
147:16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
131:00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
68:15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
52:15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
985:Please do not modify it.
908:Unsung Heroes of Science
413:electromagnetic spectrum
32:Please do not modify it.
918:. The likelihood that
140:quantum electrodynamics
904:Journal of Theoretics
530:wave-particle duality
518:wave-particle duality
393:wave-particle duality
255:wave-particle duality
910:", which lists both
387:From what I gather,
916:Immanuel Velikovsky
926:is pretty small.
924:fractured ceramics
687:
536:in the future. --
324:per SmokeyJoe. --
219:
1000:
987:
671:
664:
659:
654:
649:
646:
630:
623:
581:
574:
549:
542:
522:Photon structure
510:Photon structure
501:
494:
472:
465:
389:photon structure
374:
360:
285:
277:
271:
265:
262:
209:
206:
117:
99:
76:Photon Structure
58:Photon Structure
34:
1008:
1007:
1003:
1002:
1001:
999:
998:
997:
996:
990:deletion review
983:
906:has a page of "
869:If you suspect
776:reliable source
682:trialsanderrors
662:
657:
652:
647:
644:
626:
619:
577:
570:
545:
538:
497:
490:
468:
461:
373:§†SupaSoldier†§
372:
358:
281:
279:
275:
269:
263:
260:
204:
90:
74:
61:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1006:
1004:
995:
994:
978:
977:
964:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
835:
834:
833:
832:
799:
798:
788:
787:
786:
785:
772:
753:
752:
739:
738:
721:
720:
719:
718:
690:
669:
637:
636:
635:
602:
589:
588:
587:
586:
556:
555:
479:
478:
477:
457:
455:
452:
450:
447:
445:
444:
443:
440:
418:
416:
385:
383:
365:
347:
335:
315:
303:
287:
273:
247:
246:
245:
244:
195:
194:
193:
192:
175:
172:
165:
164:
124:
123:
60:
55:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1005:
993:
991:
986:
980:
979:
976:
973:
968:
965:
963:
960:
956:
952:
948:
945:
942:
941:
932:
929:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
905:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
887:
884:
880:
876:
872:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
852:
849:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
831:
828:
823:
819:
818:
817:
814:
809:
804:
801:
800:
797:
794:
790:
789:
784:
781:
777:
773:
770:
769:
767:
764:
760:
755:
754:
751:
748:
744:
741:
740:
737:
734:
730:
726:
723:
722:
717:
714:
710:
705:
704:
703:
700:
696:
691:
686:
683:
679:
675:
670:
668:
665:
660:
655:
650:
641:
638:
634:
631:
629:
624:
622:
615:
614:
613:
610:
609:MightyWarrior
606:
603:
601:
598:
595:. Gibberish.
594:
591:
590:
585:
582:
580:
575:
573:
567:
566:
565:
562:
558:
557:
554:
553:
550:
548:
543:
541:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
502:
500:
495:
493:
487:
483:
480:
476:
473:
471:
466:
464:
458:
456:
453:
451:
448:
446:
441:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
421:
419:
417:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
384:
380:
379:
378:
375:
369:
366:
364:
361:
355:
351:
348:
346:
343:
339:
336:
334:
331:
327:
323:
319:
316:
314:
311:
307:
304:
302:
299:
295:
291:
288:
286:
284:
278:
272:
267:
266:
256:
252:
249:
248:
243:
240:
237:
234:
231:
227:
224:
223:
222:
217:
213:
208:
207:
200:
199:Strong delete
197:
196:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
173:
170:
169:
167:
166:
163:
161:
154:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
141:
137:
132:
130:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
71:
69:
66:
59:
56:
54:
53:
50:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
984:
981:
966:
943:
919:
903:
874:
821:
807:
802:
742:
728:
727:or possibly
724:
639:
627:
620:
604:
592:
578:
571:
546:
539:
529:
521:
513:
509:
505:
504:
498:
491:
481:
469:
462:
388:
367:
349:
337:
317:
305:
289:
282:
268:
258:
250:
225:
203:
198:
182:
178:
157:
150:
135:
126:
125:
62:
45:
43:
31:
28:
759:TimLong2001
310:Utgard Loki
251:Weak Delete
177:All of the
160:TimLong2001
972:CaptinJohn
920:Theoretics
912:Halton Arp
871:theoretics
425:gamma rays
359:Pyrospirit
183:contradict
883:Greatwalk
848:SmokeyJoe
822:incorrect
813:Greatwalk
793:SmokeyJoe
780:SmokeyJoe
699:SmokeyJoe
674:test case
561:SmokeyJoe
506:Weak keep
409:particles
395:, or how
298:SmokeyJoe
953:'s moon
875:Redirect
803:Redirect
763:18.4.2.3
597:Tsumetai
437:positron
433:electron
350:Redirect
318:Redirect
290:redirect
216:contribs
120:View log
959:Anville
951:Jupiter
944:Delete.
928:Anville
808:sort of
663:veritas
645:Captain
326:Polaron
93:protect
88:history
955:Europa
947:Bm gub
879:Photon
827:Bm gub
743:Delete
733:NBeale
725:Delete
713:Bm gub
709:photon
689:texts.
605:Delete
593:Delete
534:Photon
482:Delete
435:and a
401:matter
354:Photon
342:Arkyan
338:Delete
322:Photon
306:Delete
294:photon
226:Delete
205:Seicer
187:Bm gub
144:Bm gub
136:delete
129:Bm gub
97:delete
65:Bm gub
46:Delete
729:Merge
648:panda
423:1. A
405:waves
397:light
261:Razor
179:other
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
967:Keep
914:and
902:The
747:Mike
680:. ~
658:vino
640:Keep
621:Kyok
572:Kyok
540:Kyok
492:Kyok
463:Kyok
407:and
399:and
368:Keep
330:Talk
212:talk
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
70:)
877:to
697:.
532:or
429:MeV
352:to
320:to
292:to
264:ICE
214:) (
118:– (
768:)
653:In
514:is
328:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
628:o
579:o
547:o
499:o
470:o
283:@
276:C
270:/
239:p
236:m
233:i
230:J
218:)
210:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.