Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum weirdness

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 keep‎. I see a consensus that sufficient sources exist to merit keeping the article and that OR and SYNTH issues, while present in the current article, are not insurmountable. ^Complex/_Rational 16:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum weirdness

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

PRODded with the following statement:

Not notable. Only a single reference, a book by this name. Science is the study of things that do no match common sense: "weirdness" is not thing in physics. We have plenty of articles on QM.
— User:Johnjbarton 17:52, 16 March 2024

Then it was deprodded by a user who added a large volume of references that are about quantum mechanics and also have this cliché in the title:

deprod; notability of a topic is not defined by the number of references in the article but by the coverage in multiple independent reliable sources
— User:Lambiam 12:30, 18 March 2024

The actual problem is that the article is just a WP:DICDEF — nothing here shows that there is a distinct concept from QM itself. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – more than any other content policy, every time I try to drill down on what WP:NOTADICT means for the encyclopedia I come up empty. Given that we live in a world of abstracted descriptors, it's very often unclear what boundary there is between term and concept. Is quantum weirdness the same thing as quantum mechanics? No—does the notion of it belong in any single article about quantum mechanics? Probably also no. Is it thereby a distinct concept within the total discourse on quantum mechanics? I do not know. Remsense诉 11:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good example is the article Bare particle, which in its current form is not much more than a definition (and unsourced at that), but this is no reason to seek its deletion. --Lambiam 09:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I will ignore the issue of whether the science in the article is meaningful, since that does not matter for my vote. This is very much a classic dictionary definition, see the specific description. The current article is just a list without encyclopedic content. To be an article it would have to cite information from numerous secondary sources to establish that this is a real, scientific topic of note. (As you might guess, I don't consider the concept of this article notable or sound science, but we don't need that to decide on deletion.) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [Disclosure: I am the original article creator.] I do not really understand the arguments for deletion. The term is widely used, also by notable eminent physicists. I created the article (as a stub) because this is a term that is also regularly found in the literature without accompanying explanation, so users might want to look it up to find out more about the concept. Since whole books have been written about this, there is definitely room for expansion, although, if not carefully done, this may lead to unnecessary overlap with existing articles. --Lambiam 14:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic has coverage by a number of sources. The article being just a definition at this point isn't sufficient for deletion - AfD doesn't exist to establish whether an article needs cleanup or expansion. Cortador (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that the following sentence was removed (twice) from the article:

Many "interpretations" of quantum mechanics have been proposed as explanations of such quantum phenomena in a form that is interpretable in terms of everyday, macroscopic experience; none of these has found wide acceptance.

While perhaps not that important, since the same information can be found in the article Interpretations of quantum mechanics listed in the See also section, it should be clear from this (now missing) sentence that this stub covers more than just a dictionary definition. --Lambiam 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~. Wishy-washy long neutral comment. This article does not say anything that is not already covered in a range of other existing WP articles on physics. It mostly appears to be some WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. As to quantum being weird, yes, even physicists say this. Anecdote: When I was a young student, my prof pulled me into his office, closed the door, and made me swear a secret oath: I must not talk about quantum to anyone who does not have a formal education in physics. Why? Because quantum is weirder than Hollywood or anything scifi authors could ever imagine, and people's heads would explode, and cranks and snake-oil salesmen would come out of the woodwork. I got the impression this was a standard oath administered to anyone studying physics, dating back to the WWII Manhattan project. Now, if this article was actually about that oath, and/or some sociological study of physicists, I'd be thrilled to vote "keep". But we don't need a compendium of weird stuff. Also p.s. excuse me: most of QM is weird for one reason: because weak convergence (Hilbert space) is fugnuts weird. So this is just math being weird, and not physics. And once you tune in, lots of math is really deranged and weird. Like way more weird than what QM has come up with. (I changed my tag to wishy-washy. I dunno, since everyone is talking about it, anyway, what the heck. Article could mention the U. Columbia prof who dropped his pants for Physics 101 to show how weird QM is. See youtube videos. My ex is a Dean of Students there, we chatted about this. CNN (2013) Columbia professor strips down for lecture) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 06:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: same vote, different explanation. The original article that was AfD'd was just a dictionary definition. It has since been edited adding some highly dubious WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It makes claims about what scientists think which are just not true; most scientists who have worked in the area have no "weirdness" issues. It's math. Slightly different reason to delete, same vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it even relevant to the discussion that "most scientists who have worked in the area" have no issues? Some of the most notable ones clearly did have their issues, like Einstein with several aspects of QM, as expressed in his qualification spukhafte Fernwirkungen, and his statement, Die Quantenmechanik ist sehr achtung-gebietend. Aber eine innere Stimme sagt mir, daß das doch nicht der wahre Jakob ist. Die Theorie liefert viel, aber dem Geheimnis des Alten bringt sie uns kaum näher. Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt. Scientists working in the area are not immune to the limitations of human intuition as shaped by evolution and everyday experience; if they have no issues, it is because they set their intuition aside when doing science. While true and probably sourceable, this is, however, not of direct relevance to the topic of the article.

The intended article (now still a stub) is not about alternative mathematical formalisms (which are, by the way, not always fully equivalent with vanilla Copenhagen), but about the clash between human intuition and the best available fundamental physical theory. This is an entirely different topic than covered by our "Interpretations" article.

There are, nevertheless, some connections with the "interpretations" that are worth documenting, since some interpretations of QM were obviously inspired by the desire to interpret some of the weirdness away. In the pilot wave theory there are no cats that are both alive and dead. But it does not imply and cannot explain the Born rule, so it is not mathematically equivalent. The mathematical formulation developed by Hugh Everett III in his PhD thesis is mathematically equivalent. Not so for its popularization as the many-worlds interpretation, which again does away with cats that are simultaneously alive and dead but likewise cannot explain the Born rule. Everett himself considered this transmogrification of his formal mathematical theory "bullshit".^[1] --Lambiam 07:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Interpretations of quantum mechanics which already discusses the non-definition aspects of the article in more detail. Any content that is missing from the redirect target could be merged, but I don't see any. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is still a stub, not a fully developed article. --Lambiam 07:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than a definition, what content would be here that would not be appropriate at Interpretations of quantum mechanics? There are many "interpretations" of quantum mechanics largely because it is "weird". Walsh90210 (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but probably change it entirely? I don't see a reason not to have an article on the book titled Quantum Weirdness, but if the book itself doesn't meet requirements for notability, maybe just Delete. Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie., you are "voting" both Keep and Delete? If you are not certain on Wikipedia's standards for notability, it's best to not participate in an AFD discussion than to give a contradictory opinion that doesn't help a closer assess consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. I'm familiar with the guidelines, I'm just not familiar with the book. Love, Cassie. (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Briefly, quantum weirdness is a thing referred to both in scientific publishing (and prepublishing) as well as the science communication press. I don't think the present article does a great job explaining it, but that's a signal it should be improved rather than deleted. Folly Mox (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. ~~Draftify~~. Although the article is not quite ready for mainspace, there is no policy-based reason for deletion either. WP:NOTDIC does not seem to apply, since the article is not written like a dictionary entry. What perhaps irritates the editors is the way it is presented as a fact that quantum mechanics is "weird". In the introduction of Philip Ball's book (cited in the article), 'Quantum weirdness' is actually called a trope, and Ball quite critical of portraying quantum mechanics in this fashion. To achieve a WP:NPOV, this kind of views should be included. This is not an easy subject to write an encyclopedic article about (as opposed to an essay) and draftspace should provide time for that. If, instead of draftifying, there is a consensus to redirect the article somewhere, then I suggest Introduction to quantum mechanics which matches the content of the current article quite well. See the second paragraph in the introduction of that article, and compare the list in Quantum weirdness to the section titles. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created in Oct 2022 so I think technically it is too late to draftify (WP:AFDTODRAFT). Also, we have a "moving target" page here. The one AfD'd was WP:DICTDEF; that as of 24 May is IMO WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. Of course rules can be broken and the article draftified. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. I've somewhat reluctantly changed my vote to weak keep, as I don't find it completely implausible that an article discussing the alleged counter-intuitiveness of QM could be written from the available sources. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2024 (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.