Content deleted Content added
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion from Talk:Introduction to quantum mechanics. (BOT) |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion from Talk:Introduction to quantum mechanics. (BOT) |
||
Line 470:
:::Independent of the importance of relativity to QM the topic does not belong in the introduction to the Introduction unless the subject dominates the article, which it does not. This article is about one revolution and has enough to do on that topic. So I boldly fixed this. Please check. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 00:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm glad it's gone, thanks. [[User:David spector|David Spector]] ([[User Talk:David spector|talk]]) 01:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
== Merge history -> [[History of quantum mechanics]] ==
Currently history takes more than 50% of this article; the history outweighs the article is supposedly summarizes.
To correct this imbalance and make room for new content here, I propose to merge the history with the main page. Then we can summarize the historical context for each concept selected for the introduction, linking the corresponding discussion in [[History of quantum mechanics]].
I believe this will make both articles stronger. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 14:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
:First of all, following the history of QM is how one is introduced to QM, at least in that article. It is not about redundancy, the history has a purpose. It is not simply extra content weighing down the article, Deleting the history in Intro to QM may be detrimental to that article. If you want to do some summarizing then that might best be suited for the History of QM article. If you want to do some copy editing in the Intro to QM that is fine. ----[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 15:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
::I agree that history is one path to learn QM, but only one and it has its pluses and minuses. Fortunately we don't have to choose: we can have both a history and a non-historical introduction. That is what we have been considering. Specifically we are proposing an almost non-mathematical introduction.
::Before my merge, the History page was weak. It lacked adequate material, was disorganized, and had some small amount of incorrect material. By pulling from the Introduction the new page is (in my opinion) dramatically improved.
::This page, the Introduction, had a large amount of history (over half the content) providing no real hint of "introducing" QM. The material was not selected nor presented to introduce QM but rather was focused on encyclopedic history. That is, it was perfect for the History page!
::Despite that approach, the Introduction page had numerous links claiming that the Main page was the History page. It claimed that the Introduction content was a [[Wikipedia:Summary style | summary]]. Now that we have a stronger History page, this Introduction page can legitimately summarize the History page. That would be the next step for the Introduction.
::If you are interested in the History of QM I encourage you to help us improve the [[History of quantum mechanics]] page. It's a bit scruffy and certainly could use more content.
::I hope this clarifies my point of view and I hope it also reflects, at least approximately, the views of @[[User:David spector|David spector]] and @[[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]]. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 15:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Well, it could be that editors have added extraneous 'history' content over time. I haven't looked at this article in awhile. It sounds like you have a good plan. I didn't notice that this page claimed to summarize the main History page. I'll have a look at the History of QM page. I would like input from the other editors that you pinged and hear their take on the matter. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 15:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
::::I haven't looked at the history issue due to lack of time. I agree that following the historical development of QM is an excellent way to learn about QM, but definitely roundabout, especially as QM history is littered with mistakes, such as a demand for local realism or the belief that atomic energy states are quantized because only so many waves can fit on a string that is constrained not to move at both ends, or the belief that hidden variables can explain everything without invoking nonlocality.
::::Because of such mistakes, because of the eternal misunderstanding of Feynman's remark, and because it is indirect, I would mildly oppose including much history outside of the main History of QM article. Let's just directly describe QM, okay? And let's definitely try to avoid too much talk about the mysterious named terms (axioms) that got codified around 1927 and haven't budged much since.
::::[[User:David spector|David Spector]] ([[User Talk:David spector|talk]]) 16:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::Thanks very much for your responses. Your arguments are very convincing. So, keep up the good work. And all of you are doing a great job. This was probably a change that needed to happen awhile ago. I don't have a problem with any of this. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] ([[User talk:Steve Quinn|talk]]) 21:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::'''Support''' the merger. In its current state this article mainly just reprises [[History of quantum mechanics]]. In general, I agree with [[User:David spector|David Spector]] that a minimum of history should be included here. We desperately need a real introduction to QM. I think there should be a simple section on the math - wavefunctions, bra-ket notation, Born rule, etc. As Feynman pointed out in his Lectures, the elementary math of QM is not difficult. --[[User:Chetvorno|Chetvorno]]<sup><small>[[User talk:Chetvorno|<i style="color: Purple;">TALK</i>]]</small></sup> 22:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
:Please see [[Talk:Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics#Draft_replacement_for_History_section_ready_for_review]] below; my replacement for the history in this Introduction article is ready for review. The only major question outstanding is whether to shrink the blackbody discussion to a sentence. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 02:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
| |||