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. Apart from the creator and two new accounts with likely WP:COI/WP:SOCK issues, everybody thinks this is WP:OR.  Sandstein  06:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electron internal structure[edit]

Electron internal structure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability, massive NPOV problems and the very existence of the article contradicts scientific consensus on the nature of the electron. I just don't see how to keep this article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the point Theory of the electron is limited to three dimensions and Williamson model is in 16 dimensions, then like String theory it may be compatible. No?
On having read Dr. Williamson and Dr. Van Der Marks papers, what precise paragraphs to find objection to? Shurly you not saying that this work contradicts scientific consensus without specific points of contention when the authors seem to promoting this work as being an enlightenment to QED.--Pete.delaney (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2016 (“The evolution of the physicist’s picture of nature,” Scientific

American, vol. 208, no. 2, 1963.UTC)

You fail to understand the nature of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopedia of knowledge found in secondary sources. It is not a forum for discussing the validity of new theories WP:No original research. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Pete, whether we have an article on this or not really has nothing to do with the validity of Williamson's work. He could be completely right, and we could still not have an article on it. Or he could be completely wrong, so wrong as to be ridiculous, and we might still have an article on it (for example; flat earth). Please check out The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, which will help you understand what our mission is here. Also, please read the link Xxanthippe provided. It's extremely important, as well. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP.74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, a couple things.
  • First, this much text is not likely to be read by most people. Most people will see it and simply scroll past.
  • Second, if this theory contradicts string theory, and produces predictions similar to it, then it is not a theory of the electron, but a theory of everything. It is, at least, a particle theory.
  • Third, your critiques of string theory here are not entirely accurate. For example, you say string theory is "non-perturbative" because it cannot predict the charge of an electron. This... doesn't make sense. The goal of any theory is to find a non-perturbative definition for one thing (because that would allow precise predictions which can be tested), and for the other thing, there's no 'calculating' the charge of an electron: It's negative. If it were not negative, it would not be an electron. You may mean to say that string theory does not predict the existence of a negatively charged particle with a very tiny mass, but this would be incorrect. As another example, you said that the extra dimensions of string theory are untestable, when in truth, there is no fundamental reason why that would be so. They may, in fact be untestable, but to the best of our current understanding, that would be due to the limits of technology; a fact which which invalidates your criticism.
  • Finally, the mainstream consensus is that there is no internal structure to the electron. The reasons for this can be rather complex in detail, but can be summed up by pointing out that there's only one kind of electron, hence there's no reason to suspect an internal structure. Atomic nuclei come in different forms, hence why we have searched for (and found) an internal structure of the nucleus.
This is why I suggested we merge this page to electron. I see no way to give adequate coverage of the mainstream consensus view of the electron's structure in that article with the weight it deserves. How much text can one devote to saying "there is none"? Not much. You might be able to work a 30-word sentence out of that, at best. It's just not feasible to have an article on this. Now, one could have a subsection in our electron article titled "Theories about a possible internal structure of the electron" under the "Characteristics" section that could contain a brief overview of this work. But again, it would need to be brief, and it would need to emphasize the mainstream view. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In just a few sentences, what is the internal structure of an electron according to string theory?
  • I was mostly quoting Dr. Williamson, let me ask him and get back to you on that.
  • The page on an electron says that but it seems to me that a point is an internal structure, thought very very simple. I thought Dirac claims it is a point, not just that he assumed it was a point. I thought this point assumption was part of the need for re-normalization. No. Want to clarify? --Pete.delaney (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC) (signature added by MjolnirPants)[reply]
Pete, this is now the third time I've told you that you may not edit other user's comments. You must stop this, you can be sanctioned for not respecting other editor's messages. You not only inserted your responses inside my last comment, you erased part of Shock Brigade Harvester Boris's comment. I've explained to your how to quote another user to respond point by point; you need to do that instead of editing someone else's comment. Now, as to your questions, you also need to know that this page is not for discussing the differences between Williamson's theory and string theory or the standard model. It is for discussing what we should do with the page in question. That being said, I will give you a brief answer: A structure is, by definition in both physics and common usage, an arrangement of different parts. In string theory, electrons have no structure, because they are composed of a single one-dimensional, vibrating string. In the standard model, they are composed of one single, infinitely small zero-dimensional point. Neither of those two descriptions is a 'structure'. They are fundamental objects. Now, we need to return to the topic of what to do with this page. I believe I've given my thoughts on that already. If you don't have anything to add (about what to do with the page), then I suggest we let this thread die. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 05:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been thinking of how to extend this further to include more electron models and to present the material in a more coherent format. If you have some proposed theories that you know of that haven't been ruled out by data and I don't include them I'd appreciate hearing from you on what they are. Dr. Williamson assures me that their theory has not been ruled out by data.--Pete.delaney (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2016 (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.
  1. ^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&sciodt=0,5&cites=13219624178901164014&scipsc=
  2. ^ http://ffp14.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/DOCUMENTS/PREPRINTS/WILLIAMSON_John_preprint.pdf
  3. ^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22A+new+theory+of+light+and+matter%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
  4. ^ http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/110952/1/110952.pdf
More