Testwiki:Articles for deletion/Coherence condition

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?) 16:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Coherence condition

This page appears to a crank physics page; the topic is at best obscure, the text appears to be filled with errors, inaccuracies, dubious statements, and a general jumble of formulas. I beleive this page constitues original research. The topic may well be legit, but I don't beleive that it is possible to rescue this page by merely editing it. It appears to be a part of a cluser of dubious pages: Coherence condition, Electromagnetic jet, Extended Yukawa potential, Nonlinear Coulomb field, Nonlinear magnetic field, w-field and possibly also Quantization of the pionic interaction all of which appear to have been created by one user: Rudchenko. Extensive discussion should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. linas 17:45, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless a reliable source is cited for this content. Paul August ☎ 15:48, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've been trying to figure out what these articles are about for a while now, and although the math makes some sense, the text makes none and no one else has been able to figure it out. --Laura Scudder | Talk 17:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Rudchenko *Comment: Rudchenko is currently (as recently as yesterday) contributing has 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 seems to be 213.130.21.162 on 6 May. I've added the same note on User talk:194.44.210.6 as well. Paul August ☎ 21:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

It is probable that these pages are mostly original research. 'Guilt by association' for this page is not a valid argument. I thought on first sight that this was likely some general point about field theory/differential systems. I suppose one has to accept that after a few months here and no advance, the chances are less. Charles Matthews 09:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: For the record, here were my explicit reasons: The article states a Lagrangian $L=\frac{s^2}{2}+s{\dot{s}}^2$. The second term would be called the "kinetic term" but its bizarre, a normal kinetic term would be quadratic in s-dot, with no additional factor of s. Thus, right off the bat, we have a formula that needs deep justification, and none is given. Next, we have something that appears to be a variational minimization of this lagrangian: $0=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{\infty }}{\int }}[{\dot{s}}^2\delta s+2s\dot{s}\delta \dot{s}]dx.$ But this expression seems to have missed the s^2 term in the Lagrangian. Why was it dropped? There is no explanation for this. Why is this called a "coherence condition"? It looks like some ordinary variational principle, except a term is inexplicably missing. We also have gems like: "If $D^{2}s=0$ then $s=b+ax.$". I can guess that D is some kind of derivation, but that is not stated in the article. If this is a field equation, its certainly not derived from that Lagrangian. It seems to be saying that s is harmonic, but there are few harmonic functions that take the form $s=b+ax.$ Now, maybe if a,b and/or x were grassman variables, then this last formula might make sense; in supersymmetry, harmonic functions are always first order, since the square of a grassman variable is always zero. But this article fails to use the words "antisymmetric" or "grassman"; it doesn't even mention "Clifford algebra", which the other articles in this series did. Next, we have "the field equation $Ds=0$". What happened, why is this not D^2? Subsquent formulas might make sense if the variables were grasmannian, but even so, one would have to assume that they were filled with typos and ommissions. Or something. This might also maybe sort-of make sense if one assumed this was a high-school calculus assignment filled with errors. Should I assume this is a treatment of some kind of supersymmetric classical differential equation? But to extrapolate to that would take a lot of work; and besides, what does "coherence" have to do with it? There's no quantum mechancis in here, much less a "vacuum state". This article seemed beyond repair to me. I VfD'ed it. linas 21:52, 27 May 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.