Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantization of the pionic interaction
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Quantization of the pionic interaction[edit]
This page appears to marginal and possibly a crank physics page; the text appears to be filled with errors and inaccuracies. The topic is legit; it describes an approach to nuclear physics taken during the 1940's and 1950's, but I believe would be considered archaic today. The Schroedinger equation that is given seems almost right for a Yukawa potential; however, the use of the non-relativistic Schroedinger equation in a nuclear physics context is rather inappropriate. The solutions given in the article are garbled and incoherent. I believe this page constitues original research. It may be possible to rescue this page by severe and extensive editing, but it would be a major undertaking. This page appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages, all of which are far crazier than this page: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field. All of these appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko. Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 18:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No references. Seems to be gibberish. Google doesn't find anything but this article. High amount of internal linkage to doubtful articles (all written by a single author, without a user-page, who has almost only contributed to these articles). --R.Koot 21:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Careful what you call gibberish. This one actually mostly kind of makes sense. Its not gibberish, it just seems wrong in a lot of ways. linas 21:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Linas you could write a sub for this, describing what you said above? Paul August ☎ 20:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Not really; I'd rather see pion enhanced to mention that 1) pions mediate the strong (nuclear) force, 2) that the Yukawa potential is a non-relativistic description for them, 3)the reletivistic equation for pions is the Klien gordon equation. 3) that they are pseudoscalars under parity inversion, 4) they couple to an axial-symmetric current 5) Skyrme's topological soliton aka 'cloud of pions' aka 'chiral model' is a decent model of the nucleon (proton/neutron). etc. No on actually "quantizes" pions very much, its a little more subtle than that since they're made out of quarks. I'll add this list to talk:pion linas 00:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Linas you could write a sub for this, describing what you said above? Paul August ☎ 20:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Careful what you call gibberish. This one actually mostly kind of makes sense. Its not gibberish, it just seems wrong in a lot of ways. linas 21:28, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Rudchenko *Comment: Rudchenko
is currently (as recently as yesterday) contributinghas contributed using an anon IP, (see: 194.44.210.6), and probably also contributed as: 195.184.220.198 and 213.130.21.162. I've left a note on User talk:194.44.210.6 about these VfDs. So perhaps he/she will come here to shed some light on these articles. Paul August ☎ 20:28, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Correction: I misread 194.44.210.6, taking Mar 22 to be May 22. Of the anons listed above, the most recent edits seems to be for 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. I've added the same note on User talk:194.44.210.6 as well. Paul August ☎ 22:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.