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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a widely used or well defined phrase in mathematics nor physics. The only person that I have seen use this phrase at all is the creator of the article. Creator has a history of creating pointless and redundant articles, but this time I don't see that this article could be usefully redirected. Nonsuch 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Term returns 12 google hits even before we go to uniqueness. Most of the hits are forum posts. One or two of the hits such as [www.cs.caltech.edu/cbsss/2002/pdf/quantum_morali.pdf] look like they are from genuine sources. I however, have never heard the term before and I have some (minimal) knowledge of the area. It looks to me like a neologism or protologism. JoshuaZ 19:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Dunno. The term is used in Uncertainty principle in the opening paragraph, in the sense described in this article, and likewise in Virtual particle. I think the term as such is confusing, because it is not related to the "entangled" in entangled particle, a term used in the same article. I suspect that mathematical physicists who wrote about such topics have a better term for this; the name John C. Baez comes to mind. If someone finds such a term in his or other writings, (a) rename this article to the better title; (b) add a source and if possible, improve the present text; and (c) adjust the text of Uncertainty principle accordingly. Or if this is indeed the most common term (even if rarely used), just keep this name for better or for worse; it might help though to add a note that this "entanglement" is not related to quantum entanglement. Lambiam^Talk 21:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase was added to opening paragraph of Uncertainty principle by the creator of Mathematically entangled this morning. Nonsuch 21:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this text on wikinfo, a Wikipedia look-alike:

Generalized Uncertainty Principle
The uncertainty principle does not just apply to position and momentum. In its general form, it applies to every pair of conjugate variables. Two variables are conjugate if the associated operators do not commute. An example of a pair of conjugate variables is the x-component of angular momentum (spin) vs. the y-component of angular momentum. In general, and unlike the case of position versus momentum discussed above, the lower bound for the product of the uncertainties of two conjugate variables depends on the state the system is in. The uncertainty principle becomes then a theorem in the theory of operators (see functional analysis). The uncertainty principle also applies to the pair of variables time and energy, but the mathematical treatment of this case differs somewhat from the operator approach mentioned above.

The terminology used here seems a lot more plausible. As to time and energy, here is an interesting exposition: The Time-Energy Uncertainty Relation – John Baez. I hope a domain expert (which I am not) can do something useful with this material. Lambiam^Talk 22:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The best option, in my non-expert opinion, is to work some version of the wikinfo paragraph into a new subsection of Uncertainty principle, adjusting its opening paragraph and that of Virtual particle, and delete this article. Any experts out there? Lambiam^Talk 07:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2006 (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.