Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical Schrödinger equation

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. Articles on theories have been on AFD before, but then it has often been about fringe theories that gain attention in popular media but not in academia. This one is different, because the cited sources are in journals like Physical Review D, and the theory cannot be described in any way as "fringe" when it gets published in a highly respected peer reviewed journal of that nature. However, only one of the articles cited in the page is from an another author than Mr. Jones, and having looked at that article, it does not actually contain the phrase "Classical Schrödinger equation". Apart from Jones' comments, there have been no calls for outright keeping of the article. A proposed alternative was merging with the article on Jones, but following the clear consensus to delete that article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsley Jones (Australian physicist and investor)), that possibility is moot. The article that is entitled "The classical Schrödinger equation" is according to the arxiv page [1] recently submitted to Arxiv and the PDF says that it is a pre-print that is not peer-reviewed.

While many of the delete votes here were superficial in that they only assert a lack of notability, the issues of lack of independent sourcing (in this context meaning evidence of widespread usage or commentary by other academics) and wider interest in the discoveries do remain. The concerns in the nomination statement and by Mark viking are sufficiently well-argued, and since the consensus here is for deletion, I am closing with that result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Schrödinger equation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable theory - it's got about 15 citations in Google Scholar, which effectively means that Jones's work sank without trace in the physics world. Possibly also CoI issues, as the editor who created the article is also one of the few contributors to Kingsley Jones (Australian physicist and investor)‎ (which I've also nominated for deletion). Djr32 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does not have a chance to deserve an article. ~~Redirect to Kingsley Jones in the unlikely event that it will be kept; otherwise delete.~~ Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kingsley Jones. The topic of "Classical Schrödinger equation" gets 229 hits on Google Scholar. Not all of those hits are real, as some are actually for the semi-classical Schrödinger equation and others have said "classical Schrödinger equation" when they meant "classic Schrödinger equation", but many of the hits are on topic. The main problem is that there are many approaches to creating classical analogues or approximations of the Schrödinger equation, for example, Mielnik's approach and Gimenez's approach and a whole class of classical stochastic analogs of the quantum equation. The approach by Dr. Jones is but one of them, and thus the article as written has a strongly non-neutral point of view on the topic. There is a likely conflict of interest, as all of Labbit's edits have been on this article, the Kingsley Jones article and adding a K. Jones reference to the Schrödinger–Newton equations article. This POV pushing, COI tainted article content is still verifiable, however, so the best approach would be to merge a subset (say, the references and a brief description) to the Kingsley Jones article. I would recommend against a redirect because the article content is not equivalent to, or even necessarily representative of, the topic. Mark viking (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficiently notable.-Dilaton (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- If the theory is valid, regardless of your opinion of how popular (non-notable) it is, why should it be deleted? I see no reason to remove a valid posting, as this sort of goes against the whole idea of Wikipedia? Why should you censor something true? Jake Carter -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.95.49 (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Classical_Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation&action=edit(UTC) — 14.200.95.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ---

There are indeed several research strands out there that use the term Classical or Generalized Schroedinger equation. Another notable effort in this area is de la Pena's work approaching this using Markov chains.(http://rmf.smf.mx/pdf/rmf/16/4/16_4_221.pdf). A comprehensive article on all these different efforts would be a very useful resource. Quaxquax (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)— Quaxquax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability as yet per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. a13ean (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be permitted to comment on my own equation (this is Kingsley Jones), please note the following facts: 1) prior to my discovery, there was no known wave-equation producing the limit form of the Ehrenfest Theorem

  the Ehrenfest Theorem is notable, therefore the existence of a corresponding wave-equation is notable

2) the geometrical argument based on group theory established the uniqueness of this equation

  given that the Ehrenfest Theorem is notable and this equation is unique - the two clearly go together

3) the geometrical construction employed establishes that there is only ONE such equation, and by extension only TWO possible representations of classical point mechanics: A) the original due to Hamilton; B) the second (ray representation) due to Jones 4) the entire system rests within the generalized dynamics of Weinberg. This is notable since Weinberg has a Nobel Prize and proposed his system in the paper "Testing quantum mechanics" as a way of examining theories beyond linear quantum mechanics. 5) the fact that a theory proposed as being more general than quantum mechanics (by a Nobel Laureate) actually contains a unique and exact copy of an existing theory called classical mechanics is (I would submit) notable 6) the cited exclusion of that as a "fundamental theory" due to Jones established that this unique, second representation of classical point mechanics, was inadmissible as fundamental physics is notable.

Let us make a tally. Hamilton is notable, and this is a second representation of his original point mechanics. Weinberg is notable and this shows that his generalized dynamics contains both QM and CM. Ehrenfest is notable and this is the first and ONLY POSSIBLE wave equation which reproduces the classical limit. The exclusion of the said equation due to Jones is also notable, since it establishes that this equation cannot have fundamental content and that, therefore, point mechanics is essentially approximate.

It is on the basis of sound and factual demonstration that Science is built.

By all means continue to debate this matter. The only reason I added this Wiki is that I found many queries on the web asking "What is the connection between Ehrenfest (in limit) form and the Schroedinger equation." This surprised me since I did this 20 years ago.

Encyclopedias are not merely for well-known facts or popular fixations. This is a factual result which links two well-respected noteworthy theories in a novel way. That is why I added it now. By all means delete it and everybody can wait a hundred years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.146.6.240 (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, you can always merge the above into [Ehrenfest] (logical) or footnote [Hamilton]. The point of an Encyclopedia is to educate. All the stuff about citations is just so much window dressing. People who talk about citations are clueless about how real Science is done. TIP: If you want to be cited a lot just write a wrong paper. When you do something like this, it is not cited much. What! ...you say? When I told Weinberg back in 1992 that his theory contained an exact copy of classical point mechanics he just said one word only: "Oh!". Think about it. You go to great pains with the most sensitive exclusion of non-linearity in QM ever (1 part in 10^-13) and some arrogant young pup from Australian walks in to your office and says: "Hey, Mr Nobel Laureate, the theory you just excluded empirically contains an exact copy of classical mechanics." What would you do? It is a damn shame we did not have Niels Bohr in the room at the time or we could have had a right old laugh at his expense. Wiki needs good content. You are the Wikipedians, work out how to write something that tells an accurate story. So far, all I see is the delete frog: delete delete. Get real about real results and stop hiding behind protocol. Wiki should educate. Facts are the basis of that (Kingsley Jones) [User talk:Labbit|talk] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.234.84 (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC) — 121.209.234.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Not sure how much Kingsley's spirited defense of the notability of his work will sway hearts and minds here, but I just wanted to stress that this is about the limit form of the Ehrenfest Theorem. The theorem is obviously almost trivial to derive as presented in its Wikipedia article, but the problem is that it does not hold for all cases (hence why it's called a theorem). The wikipedia article on the Ehrenfest Theorem on the other hand presents it as if the expectation values always obeys the classical dynamical laws. But the crux is, that's not always the case, as is pointed out in pretty much any QM textbook that covers the Ehrenfest Theorem e.g. http://ocw.usu.edu/physics/classical-mechanics/pdf_lectures/16.pdf. For instance it does not hold for Newton’s second law. If I understand Kingsley's work correctly than the curious thing about the equation system that he refers to as Generalized Schroedinger Equations is that it contains the special case of a classical wave equation for which Ehrenfest Theorem indeed alway holds, and he can continuously deform regular QM into the classical one based on the parameter lambda. I.e. he describes an approach to deform QM and make it ever less "quantum", and in the limit case pops out a wave equation that actually reproduces Hamiltonian mechanics. For somebody familiar with Feynman's path integral approach to QM this shouldn't be too surprising, but I certainly haven't seen this presented in that way anywhere else. Quaxquax (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.