Talk:Sub-Planck

EVERYTHING BELOW IS FROM 2008 OR BEFORE AND IS NOT DIRECTLY RELEVANT

This is not original research of mine --the page creator

This is not a totally speculative science fiction concept; although the Physists-ignorant administrators think it is sadly and keep deleting it...

Read the second part of the rag "unverified claims" - this article is unverified because you have only provided one reference.--Fredrick day (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I note that the one reference is a letter to the journal, not a peer-reviewed article. —Travis^talk 23:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

comprehensive references

We need the physics community to sort through the 1000+ published papers on this subject and reference the best and most signficant; this can only be done by a joint effort

Please sign your posts with ~~~~. It is not necessary to do so much work. If three or four on-topic, published papers can be found, that would be sufficient to establish notability. The papers should preferably be online. Additionally, references to secondary sources, such as magazine or newspaper articles might help. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nature article

IN NATURE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ARE DIFFERENT THAN OTHER LETTERS ARE ARE REALLY PUBLISHED PAPERS; PLEASE DON'T EDIT CONTENT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND

I moved the nature link to the External links section. It's a letter to the editor, so I don't think it counts as a reliable source. In any case, a simple citation is not an appropriate substitution for text. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's right, though I wouldn't have used all caps to express the point. The journal Nature uses an idiosyncratic system to refer to published items. "Letters" are short papers that undergo peer review. A large majority of the papers that Nature publishes are letters. "Articles" are longer, more in-depth papers that are typically invited by the editorial board, and are also peer reviewed. This[1] section of the journal's guide to authors explains the difference between articles and letters. "Correspondence" is the proper term for what most publications would call "letters to the editor", and are not peer reviewed.[2] The Zurek paper passed Nature's (usually) rigorous peer review and should be considered a reliable source, albeit a primary source.

As for the physics, I'm not sufficiently qualified to evaluate primary sources in this field. Some of this stuff reminds me of the Bogdanov Affair, in all honesty. What would be better than blindly listing every article that uses the term "sub-planck" would be for someone to find a couple of reviews on the topic (if they exist) and use those as the main sources for this article. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I know nothing about physics (beyond my high-school course). I'm just copyediting this article, so no objections from me. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 00:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

BOOKS FOR LAYMEN

I had the entire references for laymen, all perfectly citied scientifc american laymen articles, and and edit class and screw up disappeared it...Now I have to go back and find it all again...

references

I still don't see any references for this article - there is a laundry list of books and articles but there is no indication that a) they relate to what is being discussed and b) which bits of the article they relate to. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

At least I'm trying to add and fix this. Others could be more supportive.

There really are 1000 published papers on this subject. It is hard for a non-expert to separate the garbage from the real quality stuff and I only want to put in first tier articles -- not junk.

I.e. anybody could list 1000's of referenes to "time machines" but most articles are junk; there is a great need and great feeding frenzy for junk science. there are a few good ones especially Godel's? famous discovery of closed "back in time" general solutions to Einstein's equations in general relativity in the first two decades of the 1900's. That is a real article and true science relating to time machines... Also with the major schools of thought; there are about 100 but 90 are junk that intellegent but non-Physists just blab about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicman123 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please restrore; stop wikifascism sub-Planck is not the same as Planck Scale; both should reference each other; they should not be merged...

Some editor (who thought he knew better deleted the article) and referenced sub-Planck to Planck Scale. The two are related but are TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUES. Indeed the former encapsulates much more scope than the second.

I wish these editors would stop overspilling their editorial experitise -- quite low in my opinion -- into their coception that they have content expertise.

This error is on the order of somebody turning sub atomic (i.e. Nuclear Physics) and having it reference Chemistry for comparision.

Wikipedia really does have a major wikifascism problem, sadly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicman123 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No this article was redirect by an editor carrying out the will of the community, he was not acting alone. If you feel this redirect was incorrect, then you need to make the case for it here or on the Planck scale page. Attempting to simply restore the page will be reverted. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Planck is a good article (better than the Planck Scale article)

I have a Ph.D. in particle physics, and everything Physicman123 said is true. He has two relevant, peer-reviewed sources in Phys. Rev. Lett. Sub-Planck is a distinct topic from the Planck Scale. No particle physicist would disagree with his list of schools of thought.

Sorry if this revert is not the proper protocol for re-opening this discussion. But I figured it would be an effective means of getting the attention of all concerned editors.

Yes, it would be nice if he had put in some footnoted references. No, I am not going to put in footnoted references because I no longer have free access to the journals he referenced.

Overall, the Sub-Planck article is of better quality than the Planck Scale article to which it was pointing. The theoretical ideas section of the Planck Scale article has numerous unreferenced, highly speculative questions in an unenclyopedic form.

If you are going to get rid of Sub-Planck again, then the Planck Scale article should go to. But I think that both articles, depsite their unclear referencing, are helpful to beginners and laymen in particle physics.

--Dr.enh (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

REINSTATEMENT OF ARTICLE AS-WAS IN 2008; FUTURE CHANGES AND ADDITIONS SOLICITED

Article to be reinstated after delete-crazy editor who tried to kill it in 2008 got kicke doff of wikipedia for good trashing a wonderful article.

Obviously some minor editing and additions to this article are warented as is co-editing its interrelated Planck Scale articles