659:. My apologies to Uncle G for the poor quality of my editing; I will try to do better in future. The issue here is that the article is a wolf (non-mainsteam) in sheep's (mainstream) clothing. The first section of the article is relatively unexceptional, the second is definitely outside the mainstream and should not be implied to be in it. Some editors have not realized that the emperor has no clothes (I hope this mixture of metaphors is not too much for Uncle G to stomach). Somebody's cousin may well have taken a course with the same name but it is unlikely to have had the same subject matter.
832:
name for this kind of person). The references provided are either disreputable or completely irrelevant to the text on the page. The fact that a
Springer book exists with a title of Quantum Thermodynamics (ISBN=3540229116) does not entitle a Knowledge page of the same name. Although I have not read the book, I imagine the contents would be suitable for the Knowledge page on Quantum Statistical Mechanics, so I don't think there's any purpose in reworking this page to discuss legitimate physics. I think that the Quantum Thermodynamics page should just redirect to Quantum Statistical Mechanics.
743:, unless some clear and sourceable rationale can be given for distinguishing the two things. Anything notable and sourceable can be merged. Don't delete; the "delete and redirect" outcome is for cases where the availability of the content, even in the history, is deemed harmful (primarily defamation, copyvio, and other material that could expose the Foundation to legal risk). --
804:(which could do itself with quite a lot of attention) probably should be extended to reflect more of that discussion. But the new material in this new article appears not particularly mainstream and more than somewhat flaky. If it's merged to places, I recommend handling it with some considerable care: care to separate what's mainstream and what's not, care about
710:
about the book is just plain not true. The book is about thermodynamic relationships and behavior at a quantum level - i.e. quantum thermodynamics. Just because the authors didn't write "This is a book about quantum thermodynamics" in chapter 1, does not mean that the authors think that the concept does not exist.
592:, as one really should as a Knowledge editor in an AFD discussion, there's little explicitly cited so far in this discussion that shows that there's a distinct legitimate subject by this name, and rather a lot of vague handwaving and proof by unsupported bare assertion ("I have a cousin.") in place of such reading.
704:). The question you need to answer at AfD is whether or not the subject is notable, and this subject most certainly is. If there are POV problems, or other quality problems with the article then the appropriate cleanup templates should be placed on the article and it should be fixed, but not deleted.
1155:- At least from a physicist's point of view, there is no such thing as "quantum thermodynamics". The topic that would be called that already has a name - it's statistical mechanics. Having an article entitled "quantum thermodynamics" is like having an article titled "quantum classical mechanics".
1063:
Before closing this discussion, perhaps other editors could look at the rewritten article and comment? I tried to create a more neutral point of view, suggest alternative approaches to quantum thermodynamics and cite assertions with more reliable sources. If the consensus is still redirect, so be it,
606:
Reading chapter 1 of the book pointed to by MisterUnit above, for example, turns up the fact that nowhere is a field of quantum thermodynamics actually mentioned by the authors. That only comes in the preface by Günter Mahler on page v. Even then, M. Mahler describes it as a "popular keyword" that,
799:
this might be the natural transposition into the quantum world of the understanding and arguments developed in classical statistical mechanics (at the moment the qsm article rather baldly just sets out formulas). There's also long-running discussion, primarily carried on by philosophers, as to what
200:
This page describes a theory of 'quantum thermodynamics', a subject I have never heard of before. The article is unclear and unconvincing to me, even though I am currently pursuing a PhD in quantum physics. There are no references to peer-reviewed literature. I have been unable to find any reputable
678:
You raise an interesting point. The article may pass notability and reliable source criteria, but quantum thermodynamics could still be a controversial, contested theory. Given that there are multiple peer reviewed publications about the subject in mainstream physics publications, I don't think one
574:, who is now banned indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts to POV-push his own pet fringe theories. As a result, while the subject of the article is clearly notable as indicated by the !votes above, the text of the article is untrustworthy, and needs revision by an expert in the subject matter.
831:
I don't generally edit on
Knowledge, so this AfD process is fascinating for me so far. I'd like to use this comment to clarify my reasons for marking this article for deletion. It was clear to me when reading the article that this was the work of a crackpot, or crackpots (I don't know of a polite
709:
Clearly the "cousin argument" is a bit ridiculous, so you should probably give that one a rest. Uncle G's idea that major universities give their courses titles that have nothing to do with the subject matter of the course is equally ridiculous, so let's ignore that as well. Uncle G's statement
851:
I have completely rewritten the article to address some of the concerns above. Most of the prose has been gutted and replaced with a more neutral point of view. I added other approaches to quantum thermodynamics that I knew of and added more reliable references throughout. The article is more
219:
I've been a working physicist (statistical mechanics and condensed matter) for years and still learn of new physics theories from time to time; lack of personal knowledge isn't a reliable guide as to whether an article is notable or verifiable. Reference 7 is a
Springer book and Springer is a
415:
has not in fact opined in this discussion. Please revise your rationale so that it is not erroneous on its face. Moreover: Your cousin's course may be
History of Art in Germany for all that the world can know. Indeed, the world has no way of knowing that you even have a cousin. Please
447:
Keep and Close comment still must stand until I can see proof that this course does not exist. I find the argument that these courses have the same name but are teaching something different to be quite fantastic. It's a wild thing to say without providing proof. Sorry.
594:
Reading just the source titles gets one nowhere. Anyone with any experience of reading knows that, even in the realms of academe, titles are chosen more to be catchy than to be strictly and formally descriptive. It's an absurd notion to be basing an argument on the
719:
and look around for sources before you !vote. Even though the article as it is written totally misses the point, you'll find sources relating to quantum thermodynamics all over the place. The article needs to be reduced to a stub and re-written, not deleted.
285:, not notability. Notability deals in whether the sources themselves exist, and their provenances and depths of coverage. It is not affected by whether a particular article to hand happens to cite or properly represent such sources. AFD is not
800:
extent it is appropriate to say statistical mechanics "explains" thermodynamics (in fact if you look up either term in say the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, that's what the philosophers of science seem most keen to discuss); our article
321:. I could provide more links and countless references from reliable sources, but I don't think there is a need here. The references in the article could use some work, but there is no need for an AfD discussion on this.
169:
1086:
which is junk science from beginning to end but which is defended by a cabal of fringe activists. The trouble with the present article in its new state is that it is still not clear, or demonstrated by sources, that
1138:- the "History" and "Coupling to a macroscopic system" sections are firmly within the domain of quantum statistical mechanics. The "Keenan model" section is not sufficiently notable for wikipedia. --
715:
The book and the course that I pointed to above are just the first Google Books/Web hits that I came across out of thousands, so you shouldn't be too hung up on those either. Seriously, do some
583:
679:
could claim it is patent nonsense or fringe science. But any reliable sources contesting the validity or applicability of the theory would be a valuable addition to the article.
163:
122:
641:
paper and a set of course lectures notes. Not every arXiv paper or lecture course is notable; we need many hundreds if not thousands of citations to justify an article.
491:, as that is what is proper. I am a layman (and as a fallable human being) in this field myself, but as you can see with enough research, I eventually come around. :) --
852:
stub-like, but hopefully what is there is better founded. Note this is my first
Knowledge article rewrite, so be bold in improving my work or suggesting changes.
349:
801:
95:
90:
129:
622:
99:
588:
The point that
Xxanthippe is trying to make, albeit so badly, is that if one reads beyond the first two words of the source titles into their actual
82:
603:
and substance; and it's downright silly for encyclopaedists — for whom reading is one of the three basic necessary skills — to not read sources.
251:
273:
the page that you are waving around. It's nothing to do with the point at issue, and it's quite ironic that you're trying to make out that
236:, etc. Because of these, I think subject meets notability guidelines. The article could be improved to include multiple reliable sources.
184:
812:
story of quantum thermodynamics. In short: at a quick first glance, not at all comfortable with the material in this new article.
151:
250:
The argument is fallacious. An article may refer to respectable sources but this does not make the article itself respectable.
225:
17:
416:
concentrate upon the existences, provenances, and depths of possible sourcing for an article, as that is the requirement of
1181:
1111:
1092:
1044:
999:
990:
Redirected, according to consensus. I fail to see how the consensus could be any clearer. This article should be closed.--
930:
905:
872:
792:
784:
740:
549:
537:
529:
500:
457:
401:
51:
1180:
for all the reasons listed above. If anything valid can be salvaged from this page, it can certainly be included on the
269:
You are confused as to both what notability is and what it means when we say that it isn't inherited. You really should
145:
1193:
1172:
1147:
1123:
1104:
1073:
1049:
1021:
1004:
974:
946:
921:
884:
861:
841:
821:
770:
752:
729:
688:
668:
650:
561:
505:
462:
429:
406:
368:
340:
298:
263:
245:
210:
86:
64:
141:
314:
1212:
837:
579:
417:
206:
40:
233:
191:
385:
362:
787:
is mainstream and foundational -- see eg the book by Tolman in print since the 1930s. This new material at
1162:
1088:
788:
78:
70:
1208:
1069:
1041:
996:
942:
857:
684:
497:
454:
398:
241:
60:
36:
700:
I agree that the article is a poorly written POV mess, but that is not a reason to delete the article (
575:
1143:
1119:
1100:
1017:
880:
876:
833:
766:
725:
664:
646:
557:
336:
259:
202:
1064:
but there has been no comment on the rewrite so far and any feedback would be useful to me. Thanks.
157:
748:
177:
1082:
Your rewrite is a great improvement on the original. Far better than, for example, the scandalous
224:
shows dozens of articles by multiple authors, some in reliable peer-reviewed publications such as
1189:
634:
541:
533:
487:
After a lengthy discussion with someone who knows, (my dear cousin), I am changing my opinion to
412:
357:
318:
917:
701:
618:
425:
294:
286:
229:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1207:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
317:
and major universities are offering courses dedicated to the study of
Quantum Thermodynamics
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1065:
1037:
992:
956:
938:
853:
817:
716:
680:
571:
570:: this article was originally written - and has received only limited edits since then - by
493:
450:
394:
322:
237:
56:
1139:
1115:
1096:
1013:
909:
805:
762:
721:
660:
642:
553:
389:
332:
255:
201:
sources on the subject. I therefore think that the page should be deleted from
Knowledge.
1095:, which has a well-established article, and deserves a separate article because of this.
277:
arguments are the fallacious ones. Not representing what the sources say is a matter of
897:
744:
328:
1185:
900:. This is a legitimate name of an article. Therefore, it would be O.K., otherwise,
968:
913:
614:
421:
290:
633:. The arguments advanced by the keepers are spurious. The article appears to be a
116:
1083:
934:
813:
808:, and care not to reflect a possibly garbled account of one lab's position as
959:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
937:
that when merged it should be noted that it is not the mainstream opinion.
548:
paper and a set of course lectures notes on a non-mainstream treatment of
221:
638:
545:
220:
reputable, reliable publisher. Looking at the external reference
1201:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1110:
You might be able to incorporate some of your good work into
383:
I have a cousin enrolled in a course. <Keep and close per
327:
This article should be kept and this discussion closed per
112:
108:
104:
896:
attract crackpots, does not mean that it is in fact ,
599:
of courses and books, without any regards as to their
176:
986:
There are no votes to delete. This article should be
761:
Fair enough. If that's the case then just
Redirect.
966:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
791:... isn't. Sure, there's scope for improvement at
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1215:). No further edits should be made to this page.
313:Entire books have been written on this subject
802:Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics
190:
8:
350:list of Science-related deletion discussions
348:Note: This debate has been included in the
1012:. The consensus appears to be to Redirect.
347:
254:either within Knowledge or outside it.
222:http://www.quantumthermodynamics.org/
7:
24:
1114:, although not the Keenan model.
783:per Trovatore. The material at
984:Request to close, per consensus
795:-- for example more chat about
226:Reports on Mathematical Physics
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1091:is significantly different to
988:"Keep", or "Keep and redirect"
354:
252:WP:Notability is not inherited
1:
1194:19:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
1182:Quantum statistical mechanics
1173:15:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1148:14:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
1124:21:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
1112:quantum statistical mechanics
1105:08:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
1093:quantum statistical mechanics
1074:06:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
1050:21:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
1022:01:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
1005:01:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
975:00:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
947:01:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
931:quantum statistical mechanics
922:17:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
906:quantum statistical mechanics
885:12:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
873:quantum statistical mechanics
862:06:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
842:05:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
822:12:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
793:Quantum statistical mechanics
785:Quantum statistical mechanics
771:00:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
753:23:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
741:quantum statistical mechanics
730:15:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
689:00:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
669:05:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
651:01:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
623:05:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
584:01:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
562:22:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
550:quantum statistical mechanics
538:quantum statistical mechanics
530:quantum statistical mechanics
506:21:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
463:01:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
430:05:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
407:20:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
369:18:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
341:18:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
299:05:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
264:02:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
246:18:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
211:17:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
65:19:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
52:Quantum statistical mechanics
1232:
381:Strong Keep and Snow Close
418:Knowledge:Deletion policy
1204:Please do not modify it.
910:redirect will do no harm
234:Modern Physics Letters A
32:Please do not modify it.
611:, is attracting people.
420:in an AFD discussion.
1089:quantum thermodynamics
789:Quantum thermodynamics
325:exists for a reason.
79:Quantum thermodynamics
71:Quantum thermodynamics
1031:Yes, most definitely
637:on which to hang an
544:on which to hang an
898:a coatrack for them
927:Merge and Redirect
902:merge and redirect
892:- just because it
331:
311:
48:The result was
1171:
977:
532:. Poorly-written
371:
326:
309:
283:original research
230:Physical Review E
1223:
1206:
1167:
1160:
1156:
1048:
1047:
1003:
1002:
971:
965:
961:
933:. I agree with
572:User:Sadi Carnot
568:Keep and rewrite
504:
503:
461:
460:
405:
404:
365:
360:
356:
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
34:
1231:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1213:deletion review
1202:
1165:
1158:
1040:
1036:
995:
991:
969:
954:
834:Insurrectionist
496:
492:
453:
449:
445:ERROR CORRECTED
397:
393:
363:
358:
203:Insurrectionist
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1229:
1227:
1218:
1217:
1197:
1196:
1175:
1150:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1077:
1076:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1007:
980:
979:
978:
963:
962:
951:
950:
949:
924:
887:
865:
864:
845:
844:
825:
824:
777:
776:
775:
774:
756:
755:
733:
732:
712:
711:
706:
705:
694:
693:
692:
691:
673:
672:
654:
628:
627:
626:
576:Vulcan's Forge
565:
540:designed as a
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
435:
434:
433:
432:
373:
372:
344:
343:
310:and Snow Close
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
275:other people's
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1228:
1216:
1214:
1210:
1205:
1199:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1176:
1174:
1170:
1169:
1161:
1154:
1151:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1085:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1062:
1059:
1051:
1046:
1043:
1039:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1006:
1001:
998:
994:
989:
985:
982:
981:
976:
973:
972:
964:
960:
958:
953:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
928:
925:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
895:
891:
888:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
867:
866:
863:
859:
855:
850:
847:
846:
843:
839:
835:
830:
827:
826:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
779:
778:
772:
768:
764:
760:
759:
758:
757:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
735:
734:
731:
727:
723:
718:
714:
713:
708:
707:
703:
699:
696:
695:
690:
686:
682:
677:
676:
675:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
655:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
629:
625:
624:
620:
616:
612:
610:
604:
602:
598:
591:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
566:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
525:
521:
507:
502:
499:
495:
490:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
464:
459:
456:
452:
446:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
431:
427:
423:
419:
414:
413:Riley Huntley
411:
410:
409:
408:
403:
400:
396:
391:
388:
387:
382:
378:
375:
374:
370:
367:
366:
361:
351:
346:
345:
342:
338:
334:
330:
324:
320:
316:
312:
306:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
279:verifiability
276:
272:
268:
267:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
248:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
218:
215:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
62:
58:
54:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1203:
1200:
1177:
1163:
1159:Waleswatcher
1157:
1152:
1135:
1060:
1032:
1009:
987:
983:
967:
955:
926:
908:. Keeping a
901:
893:
889:
868:
848:
828:
809:
796:
780:
736:
697:
656:
630:
613:
609:mode du jour
608:
605:
600:
596:
593:
589:
567:
523:
522:
488:
444:
384:
380:
379:
376:
353:
308:Strong Keep
307:
282:
278:
274:
270:
216:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
50:redirect to
49:
47:
31:
28:
1084:Heim theory
1066:Mark viking
1038:Sue Rangell
993:Sue Rangell
939:Paulthomas2
854:Mark viking
681:Mark viking
635:WP:Coatrack
542:WP:Coatrack
534:WP:POV fork
524:Delete and
494:Sue Rangell
451:Sue Rangell
395:Sue Rangell
355:-- Cheers,
238:Mark viking
164:free images
57:Mark Arsten
1116:Xxanthippe
1097:Xxanthippe
1014:Xxanthippe
877:Chjoaygame
763:Xxanthippe
722:MisterUnit
702:WP:RUBBISH
661:Xxanthippe
643:Xxanthippe
554:Xxanthippe
390:MisterUnit
333:MisterUnit
256:Xxanthippe
1209:talk page
745:Trovatore
717:WP:before
392:above. --
323:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
1211:or in a
1186:PianoDan
1178:Redirect
1153:Redirect
1136:Redirect
1033:REDIRECT
957:Relisted
869:Redirect
806:WP:UNDUE
781:Redirect
737:Redirect
601:contents
526:Redirect
489:REDIRECT
377:REDIRECT
123:View log
39:or in a
1061:Comment
1010:Comment
970:MBisanz
914:Bearian
849:Comment
829:Comment
698:Comment
657:Comment
631:Comment
615:Uncle G
607:as the
590:content
422:Uncle G
386:Huntley
364:Huntley
329:WP:SNOW
291:Uncle G
287:Cleanup
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
1184:page.
935:Jheald
814:Jheald
597:titles
142:Google
100:delete
1140:Steve
894:could
639:arXiv
546:arXiv
359:Riley
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1190:talk
1166:talk
1144:talk
1120:talk
1101:talk
1070:talk
1035:. --
1018:talk
943:talk
918:talk
890:Keep
881:talk
858:talk
838:talk
818:talk
767:talk
749:talk
726:talk
685:talk
665:talk
647:talk
619:talk
580:talk
558:talk
426:talk
337:talk
319:link
315:link
295:talk
281:and
271:read
260:talk
242:talk
217:Keep
207:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
61:talk
929:to
904:to
871:to
810:the
797:why
739:to
536:of
528:to
289:.
192:TWL
121:– (
1192:)
1146:)
1122:)
1107:.
1103:)
1072:)
1042:✍
1024:.
1020:)
997:✍
945:)
920:)
912:.
883:)
860:)
840:)
820:)
769:)
751:)
728:)
687:)
667:)
649:)
621:)
582:)
560:)
552:.
498:✍
455:✍
448:--
428:)
399:✍
352:.
339:)
297:)
266:.
262:)
244:)
232:,
228:,
209:)
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
63:)
55:.
1188:(
1168:)
1164:(
1142:(
1126:.
1118:(
1099:(
1068:(
1045:✉
1016:(
1000:✉
941:(
916:(
879:(
875:.
856:(
836:(
816:(
773:.
765:(
747:(
724:(
683:(
671:.
663:(
653:.
645:(
617:(
578:(
564:.
556:(
501:✉
458:✉
424:(
402:✉
335:(
293:(
258:(
240:(
205:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
59:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.