View source for Talk:Doubly special relativity

{{old prod full|date=5 May 2009}}
{{old XfD multi |date=10 June 2004 |link=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archive_September_2004&oldid=4113114#Doubly-special_relativity |result='''keep'''}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=low|relativity=yes}}
}}
{{archivebox|
* [[Talk:Doubly-special relativity/VfD-2004-June-10|VfD 2004 June 10]]
}}

==VfD 10 June 2004==
{{polltop}} '''Keep'''

Record of deletion debate:

<s>Original research.</s>  Article even states it is not accepted in the scientific community.  Google returns 869 hits, including Wikipedia mirrors.  <s>Delete.</s>  [[User:SWAdair|SWAdair]] | [[User talk:SWAdair|Talk ]] 03:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*<s>Haha. Delete. Maybe BJAODN?</s> [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 09:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
**I should add that the reason for my vote was the few Google hits this article got - only a few hundred at the most. Upon closer examination about half of them are Wikipedia mirrors. The theory is mentioned on a few university/college pages, though. I'm withdrawing my vote, but not adding a new vote.
*Keep. Good short article (more than a stub), fascinating topic. Article states that it's not taken seriously by ''most'' of the HE physics community, but at worst this puts it into category 5 (''adhered to by a limited group'') of [[List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories|alternative, speculative and disputed theories]]. Certainly, original research should not be '''published''' on Wikipedia, but sufficiently notable minority theories should be '''described''' if we have contributors willing to do the work. By an anon who is possibly the theory's author, but even if so he's done a remarkably good job on NPOV. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 20:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Keep. There is a common problem with non-scientific readers who misunderstand the distinction between "not serious science" and "not taken seriously". The theory if valid scientific speculation. As such (speculation) is valid science and accepted in the community. It is not considered a promising theory and therefore not take seriously by most theoretical physicists, but that doesn't mean its bad science.
**Comment: That vote by [[User:Roeschter|Roeschter]] doesn't strictly count as it's unsigned. Please sign '''all''' posts to VfD, even if you are not voting and even if you have no username as yet. Signatures are a great help in keeping track of which comments are from contributors, and which are from the other sort of editor. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 01:24, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Keep, just barely, mostly because the article in its present form, with the paragraph "Annotation for non-physicist readers" is so crystal-clear in identifying the status of the theory. That paragraph, for me, saves the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 01:39, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
*Thank you, [[User:Roeschter|Roeschter]], for the clarifying paragraph.  I now agree this article should stay.  Keep.  [[User:SWAdair|SWAdair]] | [[User talk:SWAdair|Talk ]] 05:56, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

RESULT: Consensus to keep.

[[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 17:22, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

{{pollbottom}}

I think the "Annotation for non-physist readers" section should definitely stay, but doesn't need the title.  It's clear that it discusses the status of the theory and doesn't need to be labelled an "annotation".

Keep: Since it discribes the Oh-my-God particle, it does have promise.

==Metric?==
* My question is .. what's the supposed 'metric' of this kind of DSR and the Lorentz transform, Lagrangian and so on :) is this serious ? --[[User:Karl-H|Karl-H]] 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

==Paul Merriam paper==
The article mentions that the idea of DSR was "implicit in a paper by Paul Merriam." I would like to know where I can find this paper. [[User:Nullinfinity|Nullinfinity]] ([[User talk:Nullinfinity|talk]]) 03:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

==What business does this article have being on Wikipedia?==

I notimated this article for deletion, and saw it was undone with the following reason "survived VfD". Well it's been four years since that VfD, and this article still has no valid sources.

Please explain to me why this article belongs on an encyclopedic website.  The arXiv are not a relaible source, and that's pretty much all that this article cites.

Here are the current issues with this article:

*Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions...[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_for_deletion Deletion Policy]
*Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_wp_is_not What Wikipedia is Not]
*"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Notability]
*"Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Notability]
[[User:Bridger.anderson|Bridger.anderson]] ([[User talk:Bridger.anderson|talk]]) 16:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

:Have you read [[Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#arXiv_preprints_and_conference_abstracts|this page on the use of arxiv]] which basically says it can be alright to use it as a source? Apart from that the 2 papers mentioned in the 'In-line notes and references' section have been published in peer-reviewed journals (but link to the arxiv version) and of the 5 arxiv links in the 'Further reading' 2 have also been published in journals, 1 also in a conference proceedings and 1 also as a book of lecture notes. This looks like potentially quite good sourcing to me. Whether the content of the article matches the information contained in the sources is another matter. <span style="background:lightgrey;font-family:Courier;border:2px dashed #000;">[[User:JMiall|<span style="color:purple;">JMiall</span>]][[User talk:JMiall|<span style="color:red;">₰</span>]]</span> 17:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

::So taking a closer look I saw this:
::Amelino-Camelia, Giovanni (2002). "Relativity: Special treatment". Nature 418 (6893): 34–35. doi:10.1038/418034a. arΧiv:gr-qc/0207049.  It appears the author of the arXiv article got it published in Nature, which is a highly respected peer reviewed journal.  Sorry, taking a quick look, I thought all the references refered soley to the arXiv, which they do not. The arXiv article isn't the same as the Nature article I just looked up, I imagine it simply was edited after being reviewed. The sources appear legitimate, I withdraw my claim.[[User:Bridger.anderson|Bridger.anderson]] ([[User talk:Bridger.anderson|talk]]) 18:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

:It '''doesn't matter''' how long its been since it survived VfD. It HAS to go through AfD '''regardless''' of how long ago it was. [[Special:Contributions/76.66.202.139|76.66.202.139]] ([[User talk:76.66.202.139|talk]]) 05:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

::Thank you for leaving a note on my talk page about how I should have done this. I appologize for any trouble I caused, I genuinely was under the impression that these sources were not valid. On top of that, it appears that I violated a deletion policy. I appologize for that as well.[[User:Bridger.anderson|Bridger.anderson]] ([[User talk:Bridger.anderson|talk]]) 17:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

==Bounded energy==

If DSR proposes that the Plank energy is a constant, does that mean that it's a [[Max Planck]]?  [[Special:Contributions/70.247.169.197|70.247.169.197]] ([[User talk:70.247.169.197|talk]]) 23:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

== Proposal for page move to ==

The article currently reads
:''Doubly special relativity (DSR) — also called deformed special relativity …''
but I would suggest that "Deformed special relativity" is the more commonly accepted expansion of the acronym these days, and that the first sentence should be switched to read
:''Deformed special relativity (DSR) — also called doubly special relativity …''
and the page should be moved to [[Deformed special relativity]], or perhaps to something along the lines of [[DSR (physics)]] to avoid the issue of which expansion is more common.

Discuss? [[User:Thecommexokid|Thecommexokid]] ([[User talk:Thecommexokid|talk]]) 18:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)