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.
Weak Keep/Strong Merge into fundamental physical constants This is not made up by an Average Joe, it really was a term/concept coined by Frederick Pohl in his Heechee/Gateway sci-fi saga (the original trilogy is terrific soft sci-fi, and was one of my teenage favourites). An example of the term's usage by Pohl can be found here. Here is some detail on the concept from a math forum[1] - there's an mention here that the term is known enough for it to be a title and subject of a math lecture. Another mention and explanation on a math webpage here[2]. The term seems to have some currency in math/physics circles. However, I am voting "Weak Keep" only for now as I wonder whether this term is too obscure/not widespread in use enough for Wikipedia Bwithh
I am placing an appeal on the Wikipedia math and physics portals and the math/science helpdesk to call for mathematicians and physicists to evaluate how widespread this term is in their world Bwithh 04:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Herm... So this is what it feels like to be at the keep end of the afd vote going all the way the other way. Um.... I'll guess I'll just have to take as many of you with me as I can... "Made it, Ma! Top of the world!"Bwithh 17:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, it was not coined by Frederik Pohl. He just used it in his book. Green caterpillar 17:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know who coined it then ? I'm interested Bwithh 22:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came here from the math reference desk. I would recomment to Bwithh that the better place for notices like this is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Math AfDs are discussed there quite regularly. Anyway, this is not notable enough for an article as far as I can see. -lethetalk+ 04:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I posted there already too <=P Bwithh 05:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not important enough for its own article. freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ 05:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not heard of the term in 40 years of maths experience, but then I'm not a sci-fi fan, so if we have to have something, merge it. Madmath789 06:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Frederik Pohl. If ever anything can be writtten about this over a few lines then it may again become a separate article. But I doubt it. DirkvdM 09:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would not merge as the article doesn't provide enough depth for it to be unbalanced. If more depth was provided on other subjects covered in the author's book, then Merge. Certainly doesn't need its own article. I have never heard the term used and from googling there are very few references to it, all refering to the author who invented it. Leave a redirect to the authors page after deleting or merging. EAi 10:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Pohl certainly could be expanded, but this is not a good place to start, so I oppose a merge. Not good mathematics, or (as far as I know) physics. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm not sure where we discuss this as a physical concept, although it is not uncommon to observe such things; the coincidence between the gravitational constant and the age of the universe is perhaps the most common example. For merge target, I would suggest Heechee. Septentrionalis 15:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- since when did we delete article because we didnt understand them its clear what the article is talking about, and if someone searches for gosh numbers, because they don't know what they are, they wouldnt have a clue hwat had happened if the turned up at frederick pohl or whatever. PhilcTECI 17:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what fulltext search is for. Samohyl Jan 17:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We can certainly expand this article with the links Bwithh gave us. If the article still isn't big enough to keep, then Merge it with Frederik Pohl. I'm strongly against deleting it. --Yanwen 19:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pohl article or delete. "Scientific" terms made up by sci-fi writers are not, except in a few rare cases, notable enough for their own articles. -- SCZenz 22:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pohl article or keep. Whoever coined the actual term doesn't matter, but the concept itself is interesting and deep enough that it shouldn't be relegated to obsurity. capitalist 03:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pohl article - Here from the math RD. Ten years of math and physics study and I've never seen it before. Google gives 109 hits, 76 with -pohl. It's a cool term, though, and someone might one day look for it, so merge. --George 05:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept at least is a very common idea, and link to more common terms for it. Mathmo 09:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT merge with the Pohl article, link to and from it if you like. However this concept is much bigger than this writer (who I've never heard of at least....) and should not be relegated to merely a mention on this writer's article. Mathmo 09:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For everyone saying this concept is important, what concept do you mean exactly? What reasonable title would you give such an article? As a physicist, I must insist this concept isn't common at all, because it's too vague to be useful to anyone. It basically amounts to "numbers that relate to physics in some way that are interesting" (by some undefined standard). If anyone wants to tell me how to write an NPOV article on this subject without original research, please be my guest. -- SCZenz 17:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would give it the title physical coincidence, by parallel with Mathematical coincidence. Pohl's example is the identical apparent sizes of our sun and moon; I have cited the near-equality of the gravitational constant and the age of the universe (in natural units). One of these is (probably) meaningless; the other has had a physical theory based on it. Septentrionalis 19:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mathematics article is borderline OR; certainly it isn't based on sources. I fear the same problem with physical coincidences. -- SCZenz 20:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, I'm not a scientist or mathematician on any kind. But based on what I remember of the Pohl's books, Gosh numbers are not just physics/astrophysics coincidences but also values underlying basic laws of the universe which are apparently arbitrary yet also vital to the survival of life as it is. The key plot point in the Heechee saga is this Spoilers ahead - an advanced race of aliens called the Heechee have left their technology behind and have apparently vanished. In fact, they're hiding from an even more advanced race of aliens which have been around since before the Big Bang, and are trying to reverse the Big Bang, so that they can "re-roll the dice" for the gosh numbers which came into existence with the current universe (their lives were based on the old gosh numbers, and the new gosh numbers are apparently unbearable. For a scientific discussion of [gosh numbers in this way - one in a science magazine and not based on my memories, see this cached article. Money quote:"When an old universe gives rise to a new one, the physical laws - as determined by the Gosh Numbers - change slightly and randomly, the same way that genes change when they mutate within biological organisms from one generation to the next." Bwithh 22:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, this seems to be the Smolin which discusses Gosh numbers in the article: Lee Smolin. also see [3]. Bwithh 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell at the moment, the standard citation for Smolin's theory is L. Smolin, Did the universe evolve?, Class. and Quant. Grav. 9 (1992) 173; and Pohl wrote a while before that - so he's borrowing Pohl's term. Septentrionalis 02:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that this AfD is convoluting the concept from a particular sci-fi novel, which I do not think is notable enough for a separate article, with this general concept of coincidences. I wish people wouldn't do that. -- SCZenz 22:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My latest note emphasizes that the concept is not just about coincidences. And the article link shows it has been used by a noted physicist in a popular science (and scifi) magazineBwithh 22:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a GREAT idea, Septentrionalis. Changing vote to reflect this new idea Bwithh 12:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like it could be expanded into a good article. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge into either Frederik Pohl or fundamental physical constant. The use in the Pohl story gives as the main example that minus 40 degrees Celsius is the same as minus 40 degrees Fahrenheit. That has nothing to do with fundamental constants of the universe as claimed in the present article. There are no known examples of unexpected relationships among the fundamental constants, so it is not possible to expand the article with examples. Apart from the fact that the concept of the article is not the one described by Pohl, there is no good reason to single this out among all the ideas described by Pohl in his many novels. --LambiamTalk 14:01, 14 July 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.