Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum cybernetics

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 Delete, with no prejudice against the recreation of this article if the theory becomes notable enough to warrant an entry. Deathphoenix ʕ 17:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Quantum cybernetics

Hmmm...WP:NOTABILITY suggests that "a minimum standard for any given topic is that it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, where the source is independent of the topic itself." I feel that this fails that criterion. The article would appear to have been created by the person who came up with this theory, meaning that maybe it fails WP:VAIN as well. It is not a widely recognised interpretation of quantum mechanics (or, in fact, recognised by anyone at all, apparently, other than its author), and Citebase records a total of 6 citations of "quantum cybernetics", 3 of which are self-citations. See also the discussion on the article's talk page for more info.

It was prodded a while ago, someone removed the tag, but the article has remained the same.Byrgenwulf 12:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Tengfred 12:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I find the reasoning in the nomination and the talk page cogent and sensible. If these ruminations had attracted more attention, one could have made a case that they merited an article on notability grounds. However, such is not the case, and we don't need an article on every idea which went nowhere outside the inventor's head. Anville 13:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I think we should cut some slack for the hidden variable theories, but this short article is quite hard to follow, and the use of the term 'cybernetics' is not motivated. Plus the concerns about lack of citations mentioned above. To show how thoroughly this article was discussed, it should be mentioned that, besides Talk:Quantum cybernetics there was also a debate at [1]. EdJohnston 14:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete. Yes, I am the author of the article as well as of most (but not all) papers on Quantum Cybernetics. I will not go into any detail concerning the numerous errors and half-truths that came up in the discussion here. Knowing that you will delete anyway, here's what I still have to say.

I put the article here, because I thought that WP was a forum less conservative than the average (sic!) academia. I am a person involved in the discussion on the foundations of quantum theory for quite some time now, and from the serious discussions I do have with open-minded physicists, I've not had a single argument that would cast serious doubt on the proposed theory. By the way, may I remind you of Murray Gell-Mann's famous statement: "Quantum mechanics is not a theory, but rather a framework within which we believe any correct theory must fit." This is true even 80 years after it has been brought into existence! So, a little modesty would be quite adequate when putting judgements into a general form, like saying, for instance: "...but then I supposes hidden variables approaches to QM have been out of vogue since, well, Bohr." This quote by Mr. Byrgenwulf speaks for itself, even if it is meant half-jokingly (which I assume, because later in the talk he quotes John Holland's book as a "good" one) - this is exactly the way most orthodox (quantum) physicists (Copenhageners) behave. This has of course nothing to do with intellectual sincerity, but only with (mostly institutional) power. Whoever doubts this is invited to look up our webpage http:\\web.chello.at\ains and scroll down to the article on "The John Bell Scandal".

It is far from true that Quantum Cybernetics is only founded on one scientific paper (the one I quote is just an exemplary one, of course, and Found.Phys.Lett. is EXACTLY the journal where you publish "foundational" theoretical papers - Nature, or Phys.Rev.Lett., resp., would not do that on principle!), nor is the theory unknown among experts (see, e.g., J. Baker-Jarvis and P. Kabos, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042110 (2003), who begin their summing up of hidden-variable theories by saying: "Holland, Grossing <sic! no umlaut this time>, and others have performed extensive research in this area." That my approach is not quoted in strictly Bohmian papers is no big surprise, as I do believe that the Bohmian approach does not go far enough, although in many respects I consider it one of the most valuable antidotes vis-a-vis the Copenhagen hegemony, which pervades most of conservative academia (and which, of course, still does not have a theory in Gell-Mann's sense yet!).

So, what can you do? Trying to go beyond Copenhagen Mysticism (which maintains that there will be no better "understanding"), with a realist agenda, but not being a Bohmian, you'll have to develop un-orthodox strategies to promote your theory. I thought WP was an option for doing this, because I did and do believe that Quantum Cybernetics is an OFFER to people who like to THINK AUTONOMOUSLY. Unfortunately, as it seems, WP is dominated by the same academic people who have the say in the intellectual milieu that is responsible, amongst other things, for the John Bell Scandal. (By the way, up until late in his career, when he published upon invitation for Rev.Mod.Phys., Bell never published any of his by now famous papers in a scientific journal of "high reputation". He even was not allowed to give a course on the foundations of quantum theory at CERN throughout his life!)

Personally, I am convinced that sooner or later, a hidden-variable type theory will have to substitute quantum theory. Most likely, this will become necessary not because of a phantastic new theory that all of a sudden explains it all, but because new experimental facts (based on better than present-day resolutions) will force even orthodox quantum physicists to admit modifications of their beloved holy grail. Then, perhaps in a not too far future, one would be forced to look for new theoretical approaches. Quantum Cybernetics may turn out to be too simple an approach, but it might as well be that it can provide an acceptable starting-point for a more profound understanding.

Of course, I cannot conceal my disappointment about WP policies responsible for deletion of my article. I feel they have to do with an urge to be "respectable" among academics, and to stick to what can "really safely" be said about, e.g., scientific issues. Unfortunately, there's not much that is "really safe", especially in the foundations of quantum theory (and its relation to relativity, for example), and it would be wise to remain open-minded on all those issues that are only seemingly "safe", but in reality covered-up with a lot of meaningless rhetoric, like "out of vogue-ness", and the like. Okay, I guess I'll leave it at that. 212.186.121.51 20:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I really was just being flippant when I made the quip about hidden-variables approaches being out of vogue. I don't like the Copenhagen interpretation either. Also, this is really not about the accuracy or validity of your work. We both know that hidden-variables approaches have their own problems (rotational invariance, non-locality, ad hocness, etc.). So it comes down to choosing one's poison, really, as Maudlin put it. Finding an approach that sits well with one philosophically, in the absence of the higher-resolution experimental evidence (which may never be forthcoming). However, if anything nowadays, a bit of Copenhagen austerity is a blessed relief from the ontological excesses of the many-worlds view, which is arguably becoming the dominant viewpoint.

I am pleased to see that I was right about your decision to post the quantum cybernetic article here not being out of vanity, but rather a sincere attempt to draw people's attention to it. The thing is, we have to draw the line somewhere, and experience dictates that theorists posting their own theories just doesn't work. However, maybe it is me who is being unforgiveably blind and ignorant here. Can you provide some citations of the quantum cybernetic approach by other people? Because certainly, if it has generated healthy discussion in the literature, then we should have an article on it. I just couldn't find any (and I did look!). But Wikipedia, I'm afraid, is not the place to stir up that discussion. Byrgenwulf 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I may be loosing my time here, but anyway: here’s one last comment on my behalf. Yes, there are actually quite a number of citations from other people; out of several such in the early days, take, for example: G. Resconi and P. J. Marcer, "A novel representation of quantum cybernetics using Lie algebras", Physics Letters A 125, 6-7 (1987), 282-290; and in recent years, since about 2003, apart from book reviews (in English, Russian and Chinese) of my Springer book, I can offer the Phys. Rev. article I quoted last time, and also those: R. W. Carroll, "On the quantum potential", Applicable Analysis 84 (2005), 1117-1149. R. W. Carroll, Fluctuations, information, gravity and the quantum potential, Springer, book in press (2006), and a book in preparation in German: L. Fritsche und M. Haugk, Anschauliche Quantenmechanik – where, incidentally, an intensive exchange of ideas since two years is taking place with Prof. Fritsche … all of this as an example of ongoing debates which don’t enter global recognition just because of local language (... but the book is to appear also in English, eventually).

One last remark on the alleged "problems" with hidden-variable approaches. I don’t see one any more with rotational invariance (cf. recent papers by Peter Holland, most of them on the arXive), and concerning nonlocality: well, is the Copenhagen or any other interpretation better in coping with nonlocality?? I don’t think so at all, and in fact, quantum cybernetics offers a way to model nonlocal correlations via establishment of standing waves between "particle" and "detector" – not quite unlike Cramer's transactional interpretation (but without the spooky backward in time stuff). Finally, concerning ad hocness: Look into any book on quantum mechanics and add up all the ad hoc assumptions! Compared to just one (or two) in my derivation of the Schrödinger equation from a modified classical mechanics (related to assumptions about the vacuum), they are legions! Plus: you can't get something from nothing! With this deep insight I say hello one more time. May the good forces be with you! 212.186.121.51 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Quantum cybernetics is the subject of a book (Quantum Cybernetics: Toward a Unification of Relativity and Quantum Theory via Circularly Causal Modeling) published in 2000 by Springer, a major worldwide publisher. It has appeared in academic journals (Foundations of Physics Letters and Physics Letters A), and as shown by 212.186.121.51's citations above, has attracted interest beyond its originator. By the standard referenced by the nominator that a topic is notable if it "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, where the source is independent of the topic itself", quantum cybernetics is notable. Tim Smith 10:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as sourcing has since been provided, Tewfik^Talk 04:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The sources only satisfy WP:V in that they demonstrate that Mr. Groessing has in fact published his theory. I fail to see any reliable independent sources that discuss it, wich means it's likely not notable enough, IMHO. (I'm not calling it pseudoscience, because I know zip about physics, but the general tone of the above discussion is at least indicative as to why reliable sources might not be eager to pick it up...) Sandstein 08:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. My biggest concern is the vanity aspect of this article. If this theory becomes notable enough, I'm sure someone other than the theory's inventor will create an article on it. Even this new and improved version of the article is starting to lean more and more to be about the article's author than about the theory. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:18, 13 October 2006 (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.