Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum electrodynamic threshold

: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 was redirect to Magnetar. Spartaz Humbug! 03:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

=[[Quantum electrodynamic threshold]]=

:{{la|Quantum electrodynamic threshold}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Quantum electrodynamic threshold}})

The phrase "Quantum electrodynamic threshold" does not appear to be notable. (Google scholar finds only the single use in Scientific American, google books and regular google turn up mostly wikipedia mirrors and circular refs.) Anything useful said about the content of the Scientific American article is already contained in the magnetar article, so there is nothing to merge.TimothyRias (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC) TimothyRias (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is just the field strength where relativistic corrections become important. The article is borderline copyvio of the Scientific American article (which is a good read, incidentally). As an aside, we need an article on Schwinger field, if anyone feels up to writing it. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

:: Scratch that, relativistic effects become important well below this. This is more like where the interaction energy of an electron bound in a magnetic field becomes stronger than its rest mass (E = ħ*eB/mec exceeds mec2). This looks like it should give a critical field strength, which I suppose could also be called a threshold value. Back of the envelope gives gigatesla, so this is probably what they mean. The atoms deforming bullet happens at any field strength, but it should get really interesting when it goes quasi-two dimensional. I do not see why this would be the same value as above but I may be wrong here.

:: I strongly suspect that there is a different name for this critical value, but as the nominator says, it does not appear to be a term in common use. As the article stands, it provides less information than no article would (assuming that the good bits are already at magnetar, I have not checked). Do we have anyone here with a stronger particles/astrophysics background? Pair production for me is just another a power leech and even the Z machine comes nowhere near this, so this particular limit is a bit far afield (har). - 2/0 (cont.) 00:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

:::Looking around some more, there seems to be at least some literature about the special properties of very strong magnetic fields with a field strength above some critical value. Thusfar, it seems that it is mostly referred as just "BQ" (where I assume the Q stands for quantum), but also "quantum critical field strength" (searching for the last phrase on google scholar and books actually produces some results. I think the best option might be to rename this article, and expand it. One option would be quantum critical field strength, another would be to go for a more descriptive name like ultra-strong magnetic fields.TimothyRias (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. This would make an interesting article if somebody would write it up properly. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC).
  • I think this can be an interesting enough topic to warrant at least a separate section somewhere. Nergaal (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to magnetar. --Kkmurray (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • :What do you suggest be merged to magnetar? And why do you think that this is a sensible redirect? As far as I can tell the phrase "Quantum electrodynamic threshold" has only been used once in, in one article.TimothyRias (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::I see your point - that has been done and undone already here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_electrodynamic_threshold&action=historysubmit&diff=363572144&oldid=122566653]. A redirect to gauss (unit) where it is mentioned might be better.--Kkmurray (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Obvious redirect to wherever. But not notable for its own article per google news and books. BE——Critical__Talk 20:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

: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.