Visiting Grebulon

May 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Electron, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Hqb (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

About the Electron page revert

Good afternoon, I understand that there is a rule about providing cite-able material to Wikipedia and would ask for some help on finding a way to use common reason as verifiable information? I will not re-post the edits I made last night, but I would like to ask if you can help me craft the following statement into a valid Wikipedia entry.

According to the traditional understanding, each electron shell has room for an up-electron and a down-electron. These electrons must carry different properties since they seem to be electrically indifferent to one another (so much as to be able to share an orbit). Up-electrons and down-electrons should be considered different particles and are under no compulsion to emit identical radiation.

I do not want to be an obnoxious contributor and wish to play by the rules, but this statement stands on its own merit.

Can you help me craft it in such a way that it will pass Wikipedia's posting standards. I understand that the other edits I made were un-researched extrapolations of the consequences of this statement, however this statement can greatly effect the understanding electron behavior.

Thank you for your time, Visiting Grebulon (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR carefully. If you cannot find any reputable source stating clearly that "up- and down-electrons are/seem electrically indifferent to one another", or that "they should be considered different particles", or that "they are under no compulsion to emit identical radiation", that's almost certainly because such statements are not supported by the current scientific consensus. "Common reason" is hardly a reliable foundation for arguing about quantum mechanics, especially when it is used to reach conclusions apparently at odds with mainstream physics. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish original insights; the only advice I can offer is to try harder to find a reliable source (e.g., a university-level physics textbook, or a peer-reviewed research article) directly supporting the material that you want to add. Happy hunting! Hqb (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I understand the stance that Wikipedia takes and it has kind of left me in a quandary. I make no active claims to be an authority in the field of physics, however I did receive a B.S. in physics from the university of Maryland 18 years ago, so I am not a complete novice to the topic. It is with those studies that I am assured that the assertion about up/down electrons has clearly never been made. (Well at least in my experience) and that is the crux of my point. Never once did a teacher or book tell me that up or down electrons did this or that. It is that question that I had asked myself and ran up the conclusion you saw. I believe that the up/down question this edit has at hand is a question never before asked. And personally, I think it really breaks the world of dark matter and dark energy wide open.

As I read how you addressed "Common Reason" I can feel a bit of tongue in cheek with the idea that quantum mechanics is anything but common reason. But if it carries a more serious inclination, I would like to point out that if I assert that 2+2=4 by use of common reason, there is no question there. However if I make the assertion that particle a ≠ particle b hence therefore particle a emissions ≠ particle b emission is not too far of a leap for "Common Reason". But again, I am stuck dealing with the lack of published content on this particular aspect.

Again, I do appreciate the thoughtful response and I am reaching out to some of my old professors to see if I can find traction in that world. I will stand down on trying to satisfy the Wikipedia's citation policies. Thanks again Visiting Grebulon (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Visiting Grebulon, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Visiting Grebulon! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)