Support the probability of the universe!

[TinyTree]

I put a preliminary version of the probability of the universe up on Wikipedia


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_of_the_universe

And some miscreants are hoping to take it down! It is up for vote- please vote in favor of keeping it on Wikipedia!

You can vote for keeping it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Probability_of_the_universe

(Hit edit, then type in keep)


I will respond to the only coherent response:

Delete. In more detail: it is false that statistical mechanics can only be applied to deterministic systems: it is routinely applied to stochastic systems, for example Brownian motion, Markov processes, Wiener processes, money-market fluctuations, etc.

The theory specifically encompasses this. Of course statistical mechanics takes into account quantum mechanics. The deterministic example is shown as an example. The critical point is that statistical mechanics considers the probabilities of ensembles of states, not a particular state.

In the form of quantum statistical mechanics, it is also routinely applied to quantum mechanical probabilities. The article also claims that statistical mechanics takes no interest in the probability of individual microstates. This is also false: pretty much every statistical mechancal calculation is an expectation value, calculated by considering the probabilities pi of each microstate.

The article does not claim this. The reader did not grasp the main point- that the probability of a particular microstate is different than the probability the system is in a set of microstates.

[Guille]

TinyTree,

I won't vote in favor or against. It is original research. And although in toequest and toequest forums we are positive about original research, in fact, it is our vital point, in wikipedia pages it is not what they want. It is an encyclopedia, not a research institution. Maybe you do manage to mantain the article if you get someone that is not you to make it, but not like you do. If you make it look more professional, with latex equations, subtitles, a contents, a little abstract at the top, and add comments from others that have knwon the toe (might as well include comments from toequest members) then they will be more positive about it.

Good luck, Guille.

[TinyTree]

I won't vote in favor or against. It is original research.

Yes, I suppose that is correct. However, there are numerous other speculative theories on there, listed as speculative theories.. I fail to see how one differs from another (or how any of them could stay up there really judging by the criteria put forth).

Thanks for you comments, I agree the article needs some heavy editing and some pretty equations.

I am glad there are places like Toequest for ideas to be traded..

[Guille]

TinyTree,

I hadn't seen before the speculative theories, now I have. Now I do think your article should be kept. I'm going to vote for it's mantainnance and tell some people I know around wiki to help if I can. But i tihnk you should definatelly edit it to improve it all, and do it as soon as you can. The order of ideas is quite confusing.

[TinyTree]

TinyTree,

I hadn't seen before the speculative theories, now I have. Now I do think your article should be kept. I'm going to vote for it's mantainnance and tell some people I know around wiki to help if I can. But i tihnk you should definatelly edit it to improve it all, and do it as soon as you can. The order of ideas is quite confusing.

Thanks Guille, I really appreciate it. I like your comment on the voting page, it is a good one.

[Guille]

Thanks Guille, I really appreciate it. I like your comment on the voting page, it is a good one.

Good. But there is a new delte vote done after mine. We're starting to loose percentage, I don't know what else to do but look for supporters.