Content deleted Content added
move discussion from 2010 and earlier back here |
Oeconormal (talk | contribs) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=mid}}
}}
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-09-08">8 September 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-12-19">19 December 2021</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Northeastern_University/ENGW3307_Adv_Writing_for_the_Sciences_(Fall2021)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Anpa12|Anpa12]].
Line 49 ⟶ 50:
Many standard quantum mechanics textbooks, such as Merzbacher, and Landau and Lifshitz, use the term "electron" for brevity and concreteness when referring to some quantum mechanical object, although they mention this explicitly in a footnote within the first few pages.[[User:131.111.213.41|131.111.213.41]] 14:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, technically any particle or system that is 'bound'; nucleons, phonons, positronium, etc. will have quantized energy levels, and the transitions between these levels could be described as 'quantum leaps'. --[[User:Chetvorno|<
== It's not used by scientists ==
It might be worthwhile noting that although the term is used by scientists to explain quantum mechanics to nonscientists, it is not used by scientists among themselves, who are more likely to use terms like "atomic transition". To get an idea of how the term was used in published literature, I looked at the first 400 hits on Google Books. Leaving out references to the television show, the most common useage was as a metaphor in New Age and business innovation books. There was much use in general interest books about science: such as [http://books.google.com/books?id=IWvreEoFhPMC Brian Clegg (2009) ''Instant Egghead Guide to Physics''], [http://books.google.com/books?id=DFF-i63WLdIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=bill+nye&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false Bill Nye (1993) ''The Science Guy's Big Blast of Science''], [http://books.google.com/books?id=sSmEPwAACAAJ&dq=gribbin+Einstein&hl=en&ei=fXywS6LsMNXo4gaZjO3gDw Gribbin (1997) ''Einstein: a life in science''], [http://books.google.com/books?id=P2V1RbwvE1EC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Alan+guth+inflationary+univers&hl=en&ei=2XywS4HxDcy94gbmt9CWBQ&sa=X Alan Guth (1998) ''The Inflationary Universe'']. There were almost no uses in professional scientific literature; the few times it occured it was used as a metaphor for innovation: [http://books.google.com/books?id=4mosAAAAYAAJ Richard Leavens (1988) ''Interfaces, Quantum Wells, and Superlattices'']. One of the few uses by a scientist to refer to atomic transitions was [http://books.google.com/books?id=u1UmAAAAMAAJ&q=Arnold+sommerfeld&dq=Arnold+sommerfeld&hl=en&ei=toCwS8OqB4jh4gb4uJTFDw Arnold Sommerfeld (1934) ''Atomic Structure and Spectral Lines''] --[[User:Chetvorno|<
== "few nanoseconds or less" ==
Line 76 ⟶ 77:
I removed the following sentence. It is expressed obscurely (what is "doubt"?) and it does not give any context or motivation. It appears to concern stimulated emission (or absorption) in an individual atom, so it would be quite interesting to see it explained.
:''The prediction expressed in the paper<ref>http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.54.1023 - Richard J. Cook, H. J. Kimble, 1985</ref> and doubt was present in the 1980s.<ref>http://tf.boulder.nist.gov/general/pdf/2723.pdf - Early observations of macroscopic quantum jumps in single atoms</ref> Nevertheless it was shown experimentally, that the fluorescence rate of a single atom can not be calculated by [[Maxwell-Bloch equations]].'' <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/178.38.100.30|178.38.100.30]] ([[User talk:178.38.100.30|talk]]) 17:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Plan to edit ==
Line 91 ⟶ 92:
{{reflist-talk}}
== wrong connection English><Deutsch Falsche Verbindung ==
I doubt that the connection between [[Atomic electron transition]] and [[de:Elektronischer Übergang]] is all correct. Certainly [[de:Quantensprung]] which used to be the scientific term is nowerdays only used metaphoricaly and thus not equivalent to [[Quantum Jump]] which it is connected with. Still the latter is also used figuratively as explained in [[paradigm shift]]. This obviously has a broader meaning because it is connected to [[de:Paradigmenwechsel]]. This topic is posted on the talk pages of all linked articles. I recommended to discuss in one place: [[de:Diskussion:Quantensprung#Falsche Verbindung Deutsch><English wrong connection]]<br><br>Ich zweifle, dass die Verbindung zwischen [[Atomic electron transition]] und [[de:Elektronischer Übergang]] ganz korrekt ist. Jedenfalls wird der ehemalige entsprechende Fachbegriff [[de:Quantensprung]] nur noch im übertragenen Sinne gebraucht und ist damit beim wissenschaftlichen Fachbegriff [[en:Quantum Jump]] falsch. Die Nutzung im übertragenen Sinn gibt es im English auch unter [[paradigm shift]]. Das hat wohl einen weiteren Bedeutungsraum und führt daher zum deutschen [[de:Paradigmenwechsel]]. Dieses Thema wird in den Diskussionen zu allen genannten Artikeln veröffentlicht. Ich empfehle die Beratung an einem Ort zu konzentrieren. <br>[[de:Diskussion:Quantensprung#Falsche Verbindung Deutsch><English wrong connection]] [[de:User:Oeconormal|Oeconormal]] ([[de:User talk:Oeconormal|talk]]) 15:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
| |||