Talk:Firewall (physics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
High traffic

On 21 October 2013, Firewall (physics) was linked from Ars Technica, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

Winterberg?[edit]

This article now makes reference to Winterberg. Since there are no papers by him that I can find on inspire that show that his 2001 paper has anything to do with the present notion of a firewall, I'm removing him from the article.

(Given that Winterberg's "firewall" has nothing to do with Hawking radiation, I really think that there's no chance that there is any relationship.)

The user with IP 134.197.31.189 undid this edit. Since this IP is from the University of Nevada, Reno, I'm assuming that it's either Winterberg or someone closely connected to him. I've added a conflict of interest header in response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.117.204 (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The paper "An Apologia for Firewalls" by AMPS does mention that Winterberg's work is related - it appears to be one of many mechanisms that could create something like a firewall. However, the current page seems to *highly* overstate its relevance, and dedicates a lot of space to explaining Winterberg's POV. This seems to violate WP:NPOV, and unless there's a big objection I am going to delete these comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diffusive (talkcontribs) 01:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Now we have a current WP:SPA User:Fyziks123 editing the page, possibly the same person as User:Physiker121. Since multiple accounts/IPs are using Wikipedia to Winterberg as getting credit for (possibly) other peoples' discoveries without WP:RS, I'm going to do a quick cleanup across Wikipedia and see what else looks suspicious. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I undid your deletion because Winterberg has already received credit for proposing the firewall concept by Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinski, Stanford, and Sully themselves. His 2001 paper "Gamma-Ray Bursters and Lorentzian Relativity" which I used as reference in the article was cited by the above authors: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?espv=210&es_sm=93&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr=&cites=8883473043282644481 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyziks123 (talkcontribs) 20:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
The comment in the "Apologia" paper is: "Other proposals that lead to similar behavior include [85, 86, 87, 88, 89]. All such suggestions may be categorized as (perhaps suitable limits of) the massive remnant scenario described in [90]". Winterberg's paper is one of 5 here with somewhat similar proposals. I don't think that the current text is an appropriate level of credit, and there is no particular reason to single out Winterberg's paper. Diffusive (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem with your statement is that Winterberg's work was before any of them so he has priority. That's what singles out his work. Do you disagree with this? 98.166.246.220 (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to hear that AMPS is citing Winterberg and others as related previous work. However, as I'm sure you're aware, the mainstream media, and the academic papers, currently give AMPS, not Winterberg, priority for "firewalls". As Diffusive discovered, the one Apologia paper gives Winterberg credit for what they subjectively categorize as "similar behavior". Mach's behavior can be subjectively considered "similar behavior" to General Relativity, that doesn't necessarily give Mach priority for GR. Now, the media and academia might all be wrong; but due to WP:OR the talk pages are not the place to argue that; instead you have to convince the media and/or academia that Winterberg has priority, as we page editors are not qualified to judge for ourselves. In addition, if media coverage of sufficient WP:WEIGHT gives Winterberg partial credit, we can add that in as well; for example, if a future New York Times article mentions that Winterberg had a similar proposal, I'm personally fine with noting that in the Wikipedia article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
What I was saying is that Winterberg has priority over "other similar proposals", which is what I thought diffusive was talking about. I don't know if the wording used in the original edit was warranted or not, but I don't see a problem giving him priority for other similar proposals, especially in view of the fact this article was published in JHEP (which in my opinion is a more credible source than the New York Times)- not just ArXiv. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FJHEP09%282013%29018 98.166.246.220 (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
We need a WP:SECONDARY source like the NYT to establish WP:WEIGHT; otherwise every scholarly article on Wikipedia would be fifty pages long if it repeated every point made in every significant primary paper :-) . People interested in an exhaustive set of what similar previous work has been done can find that information by looking at "previous work" sections in the primary sources, and by looking at the trails of citations. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
You are just making that up. Wikipedia clearly states the following sources are allowable:
  • university-level textbooks
  • books published by respected publishing houses
  • magazines
  • journals
  • mainstream newspapers.
In this case Winterberg's article is the primary source and Almheiri's article is the secondary source. You can't just make up your own rules and say a journal is not allowable because they have different viewpoints. Newspapers have different viewpoints too. For a scientific topic, scientific journals are the most credible sources. Newspapers have no credibility on this topic.98.166.246.220 (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Winterberg's article does not state "Winterberg and others have had proposals that was similar to black hole firewalls." The AMPS "Apologia" paper did (parenthetically) make that claim, so the AMPS paper's opinion is a primary source. Nobody denies journal articles are allowable as WP:RS, but a parenthetical and conditional mention in a primary-source journal doesn't carry nearly enough WP:WEIGHT to justify inclusion. If you still disagree, feel free to ask for a third opinion as to whether the claim should be added. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, Winterberg's article along with the other subjects of Almheiri's article are the primary sources. Almheiri's article is the secondary source in the context he references them. According to Wikipedia "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." That is exactly what Almheiri's article does. He is making an evaluative claim about Winterberg's and other authors work in their relation to the firewall concept. If Almheiri's paper were a primary source in this context he would have had to be involved somehow in Winterberg's article which he obviously wasn't. The term Firewall didn't exist when Winterberg and the others wrote wrote their articles. Almheiri made an "evaluative claim" relating them to the firewall concept which is perfectly allowable in a secondary source. 98.166.246.220 (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I think this sums it up very well; therefore, a section citing Winterberg's firewall work, which is demonstrably the first one, is warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyziks123 (talkcontribs) 23:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I can only call it as I see it, both with respect to Primary/Secondary as well as with the main overall issue of whether the comment should be included. We don't have currently have consensus to add a sentence, let alone a section, citing Winterberg's work. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, you haven't provided a single argument supporting your case as to your reasoning for considering the JHEP article a primary source as opposed to a secondary source in his evaluation of other author's work in relation to the firewall concept. If the inventors of the firewall concept claim others have priority over other similar concepts, and are stating this in peer reviewed publications, I think that is a pretty good indication this is a true fact. So what we are arguing about is your unwillingness to give others, in particular Winterberg, credit for this. So I have to wonder what your motivation really is? Is it stubbornness in being proven wrong or do you have something against him personally? Only you can answer that. I agree the original editors may have overstated their case and that is an easy thing to fix. But complete exclusion is not warranted in view of all the facts. 98.166.246.220 (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I was about to explain further why it's WP:SECONDARY, but reading your comment it sounds like you don't trust my objectivity for some reason. Therefore I'll instead suggest you solicit a third-party opinion who you personally trust to be neutral, and ask them whether it should be included. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
So now you think it's WP:SECONDARY? It sounds like we agree then and there is no reason to exclude this. As far as your objectivity is concerned, perhaps it was your beginning comments in this thread making accusations against people that had me confused. 98.166.246.220 (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I misspoke, it's WP:PRIMARY. You haven't addressed that it's low weight. I'm sorry that the various WP:SPA's here can't come to consensus on this with me and Diffusive. I'm happy to enter mediation or participate in a noticeboard discussion if you wish. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I see you vandalized my edits, including the ones to fix the many references that were either poorly formatted or used old ArXiv preprint references. With regard to the WP:SECONDARY question, it's definitely a secondary reference with regard to Winterberg and other's work. Wikipedia clearly states "whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context" and it can be both at the same time. In this case it's a primary reference for AMPS but it is simultaneously a secondary source for Winterberg and anyone else they reference and analyze. That's the way it works and I never thought there was any controversy about that. By the way, this is 98.166.246.220 QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Did you mention that you're 98.166.246.220 because of the proposed WP:SOCK investigation? If so, you can respond directly on the sock investigation page rather than here, you don't have to wait until if and when the investigation is given a green light and you're officially notified on your talk page. That said, you can of course also wait to see if the investigation proceeds if you like; it's always possible the admins may disagree, or will make the valid decision to not bother pursuing it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
User:QuantumMechanic1 Please avoid WP:ADHOMINEM charges of vandalism. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
You did vandalize the page and have been reversing everyone's edits without a valid reason. I see at least 3 people's edits you reversed. I mentioned who I was out of politeness, because I didn't want to make an edit without an account and wanted everyone to know who I was. The WP:ADHOMINEM attacks have been coming from you since the very beginning of this thread and they continue even now with your false investigation charges. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I put the Winterberg material back in. According to Wikipedia, valid argumentation is required. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

On this article[edit]

There are only topics by Winterberg and lack of rigorness. But I wonder whether they must be deleted.--Enyokoyama (talk) 12:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

:Dear ‎Rolf h nelson! Thanks for your rewriting this article. I appreciate Even if they are the secondary media sources.--Enyokoyama (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

In this case, I believe relying on secondary media is strongly preferable to Wikipedians attempting to provide interpretations for a complex, controversial, and very esoteric topic. I think the edits from Rolf h nelson are a large improvement! Diffusive (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Year! I agree!--Enyokoyama (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear everybody. I apprecaite that the references become strict. Thank for changing the references to peer-reviewed paper. However, I want to leave also url of arxiv. Since I'm belonging to neither Univ. nor research institutes, it is not possible to view the contents of the document.--Enyokoyama (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to change it back, if someone made the change without consensus. The onus will be on them to provide compelling reasons and gain consensus on why the url of arxiv should remain omitted, in the unlikely event they continue to want it omitted. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't care if the if the ArXiv articles are referenced in addition to the journal article versions, but as a general rule they carry far less weight than a real journal article. ArXiv articles are essentially self published sources with no or little peer review. In situations where both exist at the same time, the journal article version is often different. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Removing "AMPS firewall"[edit]

"The proposal is often referred to as the "AMPS" firewall[1], an acronym for the names of the authors of the 2012 paper."

Removed per WP:ONUS; I could not find a reference to the phrase 'AMPS firewall' in User:QuantumMechanic1's reference. It does refer to the team as AMPS, but it does not seem to mention an AMPS firewall. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue with the reference I provided for the "AMPS firewall" citation? The text was already there - I didn't add it and it said "citation needed" or something. I provided that citation. If you read the article (the Phys Rev D version) it clearly makes reference to the "AMPS firewall". QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
My bad, doing a Ctrl-F via Chrome PDF viewer doesn't correctly on that paper for some reason. There is, indeed, one single reference to "AMPS firewall" in the current arxiv version which may be a typo for "AMPS' firewall", but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Please consider quoting in references[edit]

While it is by no means mandatory, please consider using "quote=" in your reference tag moving forward. Given that both QuantumMechanic1 and Fysiks123 have made cites that do not appear supported by their given references, we need to be more careful about references moving forwards; providing quotes in the tag is a friendly optional way of helping other editors quickly assess whether the edit is backed by the material. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As pointed out, the QuantumMechanic1 cite about the "AMPS firewall" was, in fact, arguably supported by the cited paper. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Added NPOV tag[edit]

The Winterberg material continues to be re-added despite lack of consensus that it carries sufficient WP:WEIGHT to merit mention. Rather than edit-war, I will wait for the ongoing sockpuppet investigation to finish, and then, if necessary, file an RFC. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

A consensus claim requires a proper argument. A secondary source from a peer reviewed journal is as much weight as anyone could hope for on a concept that is only 1 year old. The references you seem to be asking for are complete nonsense. Newspaper articles are not an authoritative source for theoretical physics - peer reviewed journals are. With regard to your ridiculous sock puppet accusations, a simple IP address check will clarify that. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed RFC text[edit]

The sockpuppet investigation was closed with "not absolutely convinced"; can be reopened if additional evidence presents itself. So the next step is to issue an RFC.

Here's my proposal for the RFC text:

---

What mention, if any, should be made of Friedwardt Winterberg's 2001 paper, "Gamma Ray Bursters and Lorentzian Relativity", in the Black hole firewall article? The sole source provided linking the 2001 paper with firewalls is "An Apologia for Firewalls (2013)", a 36-page paper by the AMPS team who originally proposed firewalls in 2012. AMPS's survey has exactly one mention of Winterberg 2001. There's a single footnote that mentions Winterberg and five other papers in middle of the conclusion section, as follows:

We again conclude that EFT and Purity require infalling observers to experience high drama at the would-be horizon, at least for sufficiently old black holes. The detailed form of this drama is beyond the scope of our work. Thus the `Firewall' may not necessarily resemble freely streaming radiation. For example, it could instead take the form of the large tidal forces that would naively seem to be present in the so-called fuzzball solutions advocated in [4] to replace old black holes. So such `hard' fuzzballs could perhaps be our firewalls[Footnote 31]...

[Footnote 31] Other proposals that lead to similar behavior include [85, 86, 87, 88, 89]. All such suggestions may be categorized as (perhaps suitable limits of) the massive remnant scenario described in [90].

(Winterberg's 2001 paper is reference #87.)

---

If I don't hear any objections to the text within two weeks, I'll go ahead and file the RFC. If anyone gets impatient and wants to file or just go ahead and fix the text per "no consensus" before than, they can, but given the low page view count I don't personally consider speed a priority. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing to be fixed. It's fine the way it is and a credible secondary sources was given. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I also agree that the current mention of Winterberg's paper is fine. With regard to weight, since the subject of the article is new and controversial, the existence of a credible secondary source about the paper should be enough to justify inclusion.Mortas Nemarus (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been following the argument between QuantumMechanic1 and Rolf h nelson for quite a while. Though Nelson may be right in saying that the original page gave too much credit to Winterberg, I do think that QuantumMechanic1 is correct with his current reference to Winterberg's published paper, and that currently secondary sources for the physics firewall are valid references. Leave the section in I say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.11.193 (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC: What mention, if any, should be made of Friedwardt Winterberg's 2001 paper?[edit]

The massive WP:SOCK and WP:SPA makes determination difficult, but here we go. As an FYI, I have AP and undergraduate physics background, but I think that is irrelevant for analysis of the arguments and sources. I have no relationship to any of those involved, and no prior knowledge of this particular dispute, nor have I interacted with any of the editors involved, to my knowledge.

First the raw counts (remembering that consensus is not a vote) !votes to include - 1 solid account. 5 SPA (or very new) accounts. 3 confirmed socks !votes to exclude - 2 solid accounts. 2 SPA (or very new) accounts. + 1 not sure that leans no.

Obviously I am disregarding the socks completely, and I am significantly discounting the SPAs as either likely socks, or at a at probable WP:MEAT (Or if very new unfamiliar with wiki policies, and therefore given less weight on controversy).

Lets call it a weighted outcome of 1++ for include and 2.5+ for exclude. A "no consensus" result would be the obvious simple vote result. On to the analysis of the arguments.

A significant number of the sources involved in the article (regardless of the dispute) are WP:PRIMARY, but there are a handful of secondary sources. None of the secondary sources mention Winterberg. It seems the argument for inclusion is the footnote mention in the initial WP:PRIMARY. The footnote however also mentions several others. Claims that the Winterberg paper has "priority". I am assuming that this is some sort of credit for "planting the flag" of the idea first. However, what it is is really irrelevant. There is no source saying it has priority, and no source indicating that priority is in some way significant so that argument is WP:OR, nor am I aware of any wikipedia policy saying that we should call out prior works that have "priority". While priority may have some value within the academic community, this article is not about the academic community, or the processes that generate research and credit for that research. This article is about the specific topic of Firewalls.

Therefore, my analysis of the consensus and arguments is that mentioning winterberg as is currently being done is WP:UNDUE. There are many many pages of sources that are included in the article. The only ref to winterberg is the single footnote. Our article (much shorter than the combined length of sources used) actually has MORE content about winterberg and the prior art than the sources do. That is a clear WP:WEIGHT issue.

However, I leave open the possibility that the local community may wish to add a section on "prior/similar research" which could include Winterberg among ALL of the others who are also listed. Such a section should be based on WP:SECONDARY sources preferably, and at a minimum be directly referenced in the WP:PRIMARY sources. My personal gut feeling is that if a single footnote is the only sourcing available for such a section, it would not be in policy. Further, WP:OR determining that some given paper/etc is the basis or predecessor of this topic are clearly not WP:V and are not acceptable. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What mention, if any, should be made of Friedwardt Winterberg's 2001 paper, "Gamma Ray Bursters and Lorentzian Relativity", in the Black hole firewall article? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(Also cross-posted to NPOV board [1]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf h nelson (talkcontribs) 04:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Background[edit]

The sole source provided linking the 2001 paper with firewalls is "An Apologia for Firewalls (2013)", a 36-page paper by the AMPS team who originally proposed firewalls in 2012. AMPS's survey has exactly one mention of Winterberg 2001. There's a single footnote that mentions Winterberg and five other papers in middle of the conclusion section, as follows:

We again conclude that EFT and Purity require infalling observers to experience high drama at the would-be horizon, at least for sufficiently old black holes. The detailed form of this drama is beyond the scope of our work. Thus the `Firewall' may not necessarily resemble freely streaming radiation. For example, it could instead take the form of the large tidal forces that would naively seem to be present in the so-called fuzzball solutions advocated in [4] to replace old black holes. So such `hard' fuzzballs could perhaps be our firewalls[Footnote 31]...

[Footnote 31] Other proposals that lead to similar behavior include [85, 86, 87, 88, 89]. All such suggestions may be categorized as (perhaps suitable limits of) the massive remnant scenario described in [90].

(Winterberg's 2001 paper is reference #87.) Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • I looked at Winterberg's 2001 paper, and since his paper *does* mention the firewall concept (although not with that exact term), I think it's worth mentioning Winterberg in the article. Especially since this is a new concept, and sources like his paper are the best we have. (User:Aloha1337)
  • I agree that the mention in the article right now is good. Winterberg's original mention is relevant information about the origin of the concept, and should be included.140.180.250.115 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • None, as RFC poster. Most importantly, there is insufficient WP:WEIGHT to justify inclusion. Secondly, AMPS 2013 does not link Winterberg 2001 directly to firewalls. Finally, AMPS 2013 fails WP:SECONDARY. Any one of those three points is sufficient, on its own, to bar inclusion. All three claims elaborated below. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I looked at the literature, and do not think the Winterberg contribution is significant, certainly not at the level of being singled out. The idea that black holes explode and could lead to gamma ray bursts goes back to the original 1974 Hawking article. The Winterberg (2001) paper itself is substantially confused about the nature of Lorenz invariance and coordinate dependence in black hole geometry, and it was politeness of AMPS to cite Winterberg, certainly nothing at the level of 'priority'. (User:uelipen) 07:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I also think the article should be kept the way it is. This discussion seems like much ado about nothing. RiemannZeta2 (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure. I have difficulty understanding the issue, but I think the question is whether a primary source should be noted as key if it is only cited and recognized by a single secondary source. If those are the facts and this is the case, then no, the primary source should not be used. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Rolf h nelson; I feel that it falls short of WP:WEIGHT and fails WP:SECONDARY. United States Man (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • After looking at the Winterberg and AMPS papers, I believe the way the article is (with just one sentence mentioning Winterberg's priority) is fine. Winterberg does mention the firewall idea, although without explicitly using the word "firewall." (User:Fyziks123)
  • The current mention is appropriate in my opinion. Confucius551 (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Include it. Agree with User:140.180.250.115. TheVeryOneOnlyOne (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep the reference, change the wording. I don't see any policy reason for excluding mention of Winterberg altogether as WP:Weight and WP:Secondary are both addressed by the inclusion of the paper, slight though it may be, within the dialogue of the AMPS paper. That being said, the lead is an inappropriate place to expand upon this incidental mention and the phrasing used is vague and confusing when it suggests a priority that, even putting aside the issue of what manner of priority is being referenced, is surely not supported by any source insofar as I can tell. That there is some convergence of concepts here and that AMPS noted the connection is obvious, and I don't even object to Winterberg being referenced where other sources were not, but suggesting that Winterberg was emphasized in the AMPS paper as a precursor to their own model, if that is indeed what is meant by that statement, seems like OR to me (and of dubious veracity no less). Part of the problem here results from the fact that the content and references are not being presented and formatted in a way consistent with Wikipedia norms and policy. For example, refs 5-9 (with 7 being Winterberg) are all listed in such a manner that they are validating one particular statement, but in fact only reference 4 (used earlier in the same sentence) validates that particular statement and the statement is the relevance of the papers that are refs 5-9. In order for the statement to stand as it does, those papers ought to be listed at length within the text of the claim itself, with ref 4 being used as the only actual endnote reference, and if the resulting edit was too lengthy and wordy, it could be moved to a separate new section below (where it arguably belongs to begin with). Someone clearly had their wires crossed when writing and referencing that particular section, and a think the lead could use some tightening in general as a result.Snow (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Technically, Winterberg provides the first description of how firewalls behave, so the 2001 paper is the priumary source. AMPS et al rediscovered and are pursuing interpretations of the phenomenon, as is Hawkings with his recent 2014 work in the arxiv, which frequently happens when more "popular" scientist re-discover theorems. The perceived controversy is in Winterberg's use of Lorentzian vs Einsteinian relativity, which is done in the paper to set a preferred reference system, through which the precise effect of a firewall is seen (particles approaching the event horizon's preferred ref. frame reach the speed of light, thus all mater must disintegrate into particles of vanishing rest mass). This is exactly what the Black Hole "firewall" has come to describe. A new section describing the origin of the theory should be added, with a hard link to Winterberg's paper and a description of why Lorentzian is better than Einsteinian relativity in this case for educational purposes. Thank you.
  • Exclude mentions to Winterberg thoroughly. I agree mostly with Rolf H Nelson, and where I don't, it might be just my ignorance. In my opinion, Winterberg's paper is just not worth mentioning. After seeing all this confirmed sockpuppetry I'm also inclined to say that sockpuppets should not be given leash. I tend to think that Winterberg could be incorporated into a larger article, but that longer article would not be probable to be written. --91.152.67.177 (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion[edit]

Didn't we cover this issue already? There seems to be a consensus already. This is getting very old ... QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Claim: Insufficient WP:WEIGHT to justify inclusion. 1/6 of one parenthetical footnote in AMPS 2013, a 36-page paper, translates to 0 words in a one-page Wikipedia article, even if the article were solely based on AMPS 2013. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

To my eyes it reads as a sentence, which is more than 0 words. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Claim: AMPS 2013 does not link Winterberg 2001 directly to firewalls. The excerpted paragraph from AMPS 2013 seems to state only that a firewall doesn't necessarily have to consist of radiation as generally assumed, and could instead consist of tidal forces; that *maybe* massive remnant scenarios could produce such tidal forces; and hey, if you're not familiar with how massive remnants work, here are seven massive remnant scenarios, of which six (including Winterberg) are relegated to a single footnote. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

They link it to firewalls as is claimed in the text. The text never claims he invented firewalls, simply that it is a related concept. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any sentence saying it's a "related concept to firewalls". Let me give you a reductio ad absurdum. To pick a line at random, the paper says that "We develop the use of large AdS black holes as a system to sharpen the firewall argument." Are you going to advocate that we add a line to the lede that the concept of "sharpening" is related to firewalls, since it's mentioned in the paper? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
What they say exactly is, "Other proposals that lead to similar behavior include", which in my view means it is related. If it were as unrelated as you claim there would be no reason for them to mention Winterberg at all. As you may or may not know, even European journals charge a premium for page space above a certain length, so including superfluous information is not to their advantage. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Though it's unorthodox, perhaps it would be helpful if you email the AMPS team and point them to this talk page and ask them to clarify whether their paper states that Winterberg should be given priority among "work related to firewalls". I don't know if any of them will respond, but if they do respond here on the talk page and say that Winterberg gets priority, I would be personally willing to waive WP:RS and drop my objections to inclusion (though of course I can't speak for other editors, who would still retain a right to require WP:RS). If you like, I can attempt to email them, although I have a mysterious intuition that they'll be more likely to respond to you than to me. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I have written them before and didn't get very much out of them. I doubt they would be interested in getting involved in an internet dispute or take seriously what is said on Wikipedia. I know one person in that group at Santa Barbara (Giddings) as I went to school with him, but that was a long time ago. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 12:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Did you write to them before about an unrelated topic, or about Winterberg and firewalls? If the latter, what did they say? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not completely unheard of for subjects to get involved. For example, Winterberg has gotten involved in disputes on Wikipedia, so it wouldn't completely blow my mind if someone on the AMPS team were willing to get involved in a discussion of their own work. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing generally depends on how forthright people are about conflicts of interest. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I wrote them asking for a reprint of the Springer version of their article. My institution doesn't subscribe to that particular journal. They wrote back telling me to get the ArXiv version because the only difference was minor points like the references. I replied telling them it was the references I was interested in and asked again for a reprint. They didn't reply at all. I ended up ordering it from our library. They didn't seem particularly interested in talking to me so I can only assume they would be less interested in getting involved here. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Claim: The given AMPS 2013 citation is a primary source for the claim that Winterberg 2001 has any relation whatsoever, however indirect, to firewalls. I take the same position as the essay WP:USEPRIMARY, which states "The first published source for any given fact is always considered a primary source." Per WP:PRIMARY primary sources should not be used without a good reason. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

We have covered this issue before it is most definitely a secondary source for anyone they reference and analyze. According to WP:ALLPRIMARY

Every source is the primary source for something, whether it be the name of the author, its title, its date of publication, and so forth. For example, no matter what kind of book it is, the copyright page inside the front of a book is a primary source for the date of the book's publication. Even if the book would normally be considered a secondary source, if the statement that you are using this source to support is the date of its own publication, then you are using that book as a primary source.

More importantly, many high-quality sources contain both primary and secondary material. A textbook might include commentary on the proclamation (which is secondary material) as well as the full text of the proclamation (which is primary material). A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material). An author might write a book about an event that is mostly a synthesis of primary-source news stories (which is secondary material), but he might add occasional information about personal experiences or new material from recent interviews (which is primary material). The book about love letters might analyze the letters (which is secondary material) and provide a transcription of the letters in an appendix (which is primary material). The work based on previously published sources is probably a secondary source; the new information is a primary source.

I hope this finally puts this primary/secondary issue to bed for good. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that, if the Winterberg reference in AMPS were a *summary* of Winterberg, it would be a secondary source. However, the (extremely-indirect) connection between Winterberg and firewalls is a novel idea, not a summary. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is this is a very new topic so you are not going to have a lot of different high quality sources that cover this in depth. I tried to offer a compromise between what was originally said and taking it out completely. What I have is factual, in my view, without giving him more credit than what I can prove. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Claim: Winterberg's paper does not mention the firewall concept. No citation has been provided to establish the claim that Winterberg 2001 mentions the firewall concept; in addition, every WP:RS I've seen in the course of helping edit and research this article, from Nature to the New York Times. ascribes the firewall concept to the AMPS team and make no mention of Winterberg. If I'm wrong, User:Aloha1337 or others are welcome to provide a source here establishing otherwise. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to because AMPS already related his concept along with several others to the firewall concept. QuantumMechanic1 (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"I have difficulty understanding the issue, but I think the question is whether a primary source should be noted as key if it is only cited and recognized by a single secondary source. If those are the facts and this is the case, then no, the primary source should not be used. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)"

@User:Bluerasberry to clarify, is your position that the dispute over whether there are zero or one significant secondary sources can be tabled for now, as you would personally require two significant secondary sources for inclusion, and therefore the material should be removed until an additional source can be found? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I am new to this discussion, however have read the comments in these threads. From my perspective, Winterberg's paper "Gamma Ray Bursters and Lorentzian Relativity" is the primary source and he deserves due credit for his early contribution to the idea of Firewalls. I believe it carries sufficient weight to merit mention. His mention is germane to the origin of the idea and must be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robousy (talkcontribs) 14:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Technically, Winterberg provides the first description of how firewalls behave, so the 2001 paper is the priumary source. AMPS et al rediscovered and are pursuing interpretations of the phenomenon, as is Hawkings with his recent 2014 work in the arxiv, which frequently happens when more "popular" scientist re-discover theorems. The perceived controversy is in Winterberg's use of Lorentzian vs Einsteinian relativity, which is done in the paper to set a preferred reference system, through which the precise effect of a firewall is seen (particles approaching the event horizon's preferred ref. frame reach the speed of light, thus all mater must disintegrate into particles of vanishing rest mass). This is exactly what the Black Hole "firewall" has come to describe. A new section describing the origin of the theory should be added, with a hard link to Winterberg's paper and a description of why Lorentzian is better than Einsteinian relativity in this case for educational purposes. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakeredfield (talkcontribs) 20:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Closing request and confirmed sockpuppetry[edit]

Note to closer: there is confirmed sockpuppetry among some of the RfC contributers, so as always keep in mind that "consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" rather than numbers. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


RfC outcome[edit]

Reverting to no current mention of Winterberg. If additional sources appear mentioning Winterberg in the future (which wouldn't surprise me greatly since there's not much that can be done about WP:CIRCULAR), or if there's a proposed edit that's consistent with the RfC outcome, please bring them up on the discussion page and we can build WP:CONSENSUS towards a new version. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The accusation against me of sock puppetry is absurd. It is perhaps possible that some of my 150 students I had in a beginners physics class, where I had mentioned the extremely interesting firewall phenomenon and my discovery of it in 2001, may have without my knowledge written something. But that does not make them sock puppets of me. What is needed is to find out if some of the people who admitted not to know much about this highly esoteric topic in theoretical physics are perhaps rather sock puppets of Nelson. And what has Alvestrand to do with this, who Nelson had asked for his opinion. This whole thing must be political for reasons only known to Nelson and Alvestrand. How can it otherwise be explained that Mr. Nelson who in Physics is a nobody makes such an extreme effort to exclude me from being cited. This episode explains why in academe the Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. For this reason students cannot use the Wikipedia as a source in their home work or thesis. Questions for Mr. Nelson: Since Hawking has arrived at the same conclusion as I had in my 2001 paper, which is that black holes do not exist, is Hawking a sock puppet of me? And why is Hawking now cited in the firewall article but not I, is this celebrity physics? F. Winterberg, Professor of Physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.186.114 (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

As to why Winterberg doesn't get priority for Hawking 2014, there are two reasons, either of which is sufficient on its own:
1. When I was three years old, I guess I believed that black holes didn't exist since I hadn't heard of them; that doesn't mean I get priority for Hawking's 2014 paper. Hawking's paper isn't the four words "black holes don't exist"; instead he outlines a (somewhat) specific proposal that seems to be different from Winterberg's proposal, and includes novel reasoning for why black holes don't exist. Hawking gets priority for Hawking's theory, and Winterberg gets priority for Winterberg's theory. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Question to Nelson:Why is he not included as the three year old originator of the black holes do not exist idea?
2. The second reason is that even if Hawking's proposal were just the four words "black holes don't exist", we have the problem that Winterberg 2001 was hardly the first to propose that black hole formation is somehow prevented. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hawking 2014 is included on the page per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS because his proposal seems to be widely discussed by top scientists and the media, whereas Winterberg 2001 has exactly two citations according to Google Scholar. If you have a problem with that, you'll have to take it up with the scientific community and the media; if and when they change their mind and start talking about Winterberg 2001, I will be happy to see you included on this page. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Finally, accusing other people (or me, for that matter) of being politically motivated, and especially of being sock puppets, without any evidence other than (to paraphrase) "they agree with all the other scientists and the media, rather than with me" is a violation of WP:CIVIL. I'd never even heard of Winterberg before looking at this firewall page; I suspect many of the other editors are in the same position. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC).

Question to Nelson: Nelson claims he never had heard of Winterberg but for the RfC consensus had asked Alvestrand who took a strong position against Winterberg's discovery that part of Hilbert's galley proofs on the gravitational field equations was cut off, invalidating the claim by Corry, Renn and Stachel (published in Science) that Hilbert had plagiarized these equations from Einstein? Political?

Nelson has been editing here for about a year, on all manner of topics. Hes does not appear to have any special relationship to the concept of physics, or any of the people involved in this insignificant real world controversy. Winterberg on the other hand apparently has not read WP:COI WP:RS WP:OR WP:V WP:AUTOBIO or any other of the many relevant policies that are the reason we are not including his claims. While credit, priority, winterberg etc may be of big "political" controversy in the microcosm of academic physicists, the rest of the world frankly does not care. It is completely beneath the radar of everyone. Wikipedia follows the sources. Winterberg may be getting robbed of credit for the firewall concept, but that isn't a problem that wikipedia is going to solve. This certainly may be due to politics, but its not wikipedia's politics. Defending Nazis, and accusing peers of plagiarism and conspiracies (the latter issue appears to be a trend here) might tend to make one a pariah in the physics community. That's a problem for the Winterberg, not wikipedia. A single footnote is not sufficient sourcing. Clearly even within the wider physics world Winterberg is not credited with any sort of notable credit for firewalls. If he was, there would be more than a footnote. If he was, he would not have to run around to every blog and article mentioning black holes and firewalls to try and claim credit. The articles and papers would be doing it for him. look at me, look at me, i'm important. [2] [3] [4] [5] Or have ips, coincidentally from Reno, adding references to Winterberg on many articles Special:Contributions/134.197.31.189 Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
This Mr. or Mrs. Gaijin42(or what his/her real name is) is completely wrong with his "Defending Nazis" allegation. What had happened was that during the hight of the cold war, nazi hunting attorneys of the USDOJ asked the government of communist East Germany for evidence against the scientists who were brought over to the USA on invitation of the US Government under the program "operation paperclip",including those like me who were never nazis. I was just 15 years old at the end of WWII. When I learned about this unsavory activity and had by chance obtained the copy of a diplomatic note by these US attorneys to the East German communists, I informed the US Government about this activity. I assume it must have been President Reagan who ordered a stop of it. Dr. F. Winterberg, Professor of Physics.
To answer the part of your question that I understand, I heard of Alvestrand after observing indications of sockpuppetry and doing a search [6] for previous sockpuppetry that led me to a discussion [7] where Alvestrand indicated he or she might have additional insight into the previous alleged sockpuppetry. I haven't actually bothered to contact Alvestrand yet. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Mr. Gaijin42 for giving Winterberg this publicity. Let the readers decide what they think of your and Mr. Nelson's comments: Here is the reference of the article by Winterberg on black hole firewalls which had been deleted by Nelson: "Gamma Ray Bursters and Lorentzian Relativity", Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung 56a, 889-892 (2001). And here is the reference to the article disliked by Mr. Gaijin42, entitled: "On 'Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute',published by L.Corry, J.Renn and J.Stachel", Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung 56a,715-719 (2004). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.197.31.189 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Quantum theory, by Winterberg[edit]

Dear Readers here is what I put on Matt Strassler's blog "Of Particular Significance...: Quantum theory is a theory for all possible objects, while electrodynamics, gravity, atoms, Schroedinger's cat, you and me, are examples of possible objects. This simply means that quantum theory, verified more than million times, has precedence. For this reason the theory of relativity, special or general, must be modified, not quantum theory, to solve the firewall paradox. The easiest way is to replace the special, and by implication the general theory of relativity with the pre-Einstein theory of relativity by Lorentz and Poincare. It assumed the existence of a preferred reference system in which the Lorentz- invariant zero point vacuum energy is at rest. Cutting off this energy at the Planck energy destroys Lorentz invariance, but only for energies close to the Planck energy, reached at the event horizon. There then matter held in a stable equilibrium by an elliptic differential equation goes over a transluminal Euler-Tricomi equation into a hyperbolic differential equation where no such equilibrium is possible, with all matter disintegrating into radiation explaining the observed huge gamma ray bursts which no model has been able to explain. F. Winterberg Professor of Physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.197.31.93 (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Such may be true, but unless published in a WP:RELIABLESOURCE and cited and gaining traction within the academic community, this is merely one of many theories with no special prominence. Also, unless published it is WP:OR and not usable in wikipedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Supersymmetry has been gaining traction for 30 years with 30 0000 publications but it is not even wrong: It is groupthink like a church community with not a single evidence. The deleting my paper quoted by leading scientists,not the 30 000 adherents of SUSY authors of course, is not science but religion in the guise of science. Mr. gaijin42 don't be a coward and reveal your real name so everybody can check what your contributions to science are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.197.31.20 (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no contributions to science. You have no right to demand my identity, but I will tell you that I am not Jimbo Wales, but I am interested to see whatever rumors you are talking about. You need to provide reliable sources that directly, unambiguously, and explicitly link your research to the topics at hand. You need to do this BECAUSE I and the other editors are not physicists, and we have no way to evaluate legitimate claims from quacks. There is a parallel discussion going on right now from a physicist who claims his research has disproved global warming on venus. Arbitrator Newyorkbrad has made a substantially similar comment on that case [8]

Mr. Cotton, it appears to me that you believe the existing scientific consensus as to climatology of Venus is incorrect. But Wikipedia policy is to report scientific consensus as it exists, rather than what one particular person, however expert he or she may or may not be, has concluded is the truth. This is our policy for several reasons, not the least of which is that Wikipedians who are generalists, such as those of us who serve on the Arbitration Committee, have no way of telling which of the hundreds of new scientific hypotheses or theories that are posited each year will turn out to be sound. In other words, you seem to be on a mission to change the prevailing view that the greenhouse effect affects Venus: whether you are right or wrong is not for me to say (though I may have my own view), but Wikipedia is not the right website on which you may try to persuade everyone

You may be getting denied credit for your priority. That is a problem between you and the physics community. Thus far, with the exception of a single footnote, you are the only person making that linkage. Until reliable sources unambiguously and explicitly give you priority and say your research is applicable, wikipedia cannot say so. Absolutely anyone who has a paper on any topic could come here and say it is relevant. Unless it is WP:VERIFIABLE from WP:RELIABLESOURCES we will not be adding it. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2014[edit]

Please change the 4th reference from "Ouellette, Jennifer (21 December 2012). "Black Hole Firewalls Confound Theoretical Physicists". Scientific American. Retrieved 29 October 2013."

To:

"Ouellette, Jennifer (21 December 2012). "<a href="http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20121221-alice-and-bob-meet-the-wall-of-fire/">Black Hole Firewalls Confound Theoretical Physicists</a>". Quanta Magazine. Retrieved 29 October 2013."

This is to correct the sourcing of the article, which was originally published in Quanta Magazine and later reprinted in Scientific American. Thank you.

Wikiscience07 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Welcome to Wikipedia. Did you personally read the original article? If not, we can't just replace it, see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. In the latter case, I'll simply add the info about the original publication. Paradoctor (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Done: I don't know of any rule about who to cite in syndicated content; usually I just put in the most notable reprinter if there's a choice, but any is usually fine. I went ahead and added the information about the original Quanta source as requested, which I looked at and does equally support the cited statement. I'm keeping in the Scientific American reprint as an additional source, since I know Sci Am meets WP:RS in this context but I don't know offhand whether Quanta does. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    • ^ Borun D. Chowdhury and Andrea Puhm, "Decoherence and the fate of an infalling wave packet: Is Alice burning or fuzzing?", Phys. Rev. D 88, 063509 (2013)