Content deleted Content added
changed to navigable talk archive |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
||
Line 113:
:I feel that GeorgeLouis's rewrite goes in the wrong direction, but it was at least a start. The previous article had way, way too much baggage. Here's my two cents: (1)I suggest omitting ALL the history. We already have [[History of quantum mechanics]] and [[History of quantum physics]] and it is clear from comments on this page that people think the article had too much history. (2)I'd also suggest omitting connections to relativity and other advanced topics; we need to keep the article short. (3)It's clear from the comments on this page which direction this article should go. What people want this article to address is why QM is so hard to understand. It should just be a primer, in simple language, of how small-scale (quantum) objects behave differently from large scale objects: [[wave-particle duality]], [[uncertainty principle]], [[quantum probability]] and nondeterminism, [[quantum superposition|superpostions]], quantized [[energy level]]s, [[interference (physics)|interference]]. Yes, we have articles on these topics, but not in simple language.
:I began a rewrite that can be viewed [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chetvorno/work1#For_Introduction_to_Quantum_Mechanics here], although I'm not satisfied the language is simple enough. --[[User:Chetvorno|<
::Baccyak4H, and everybody:
Line 276:
=== Old quantum theory ===
I feel this whole section should be omitted, in compliance with the desire expressed by many people on this page for less history. There is already a [[History of quantum mechanics]]. This article should omit the history. --[[User:Chetvorno|<
:As far as the history items, such as the (to me) interesting fact that Balmer was a pioneer who had no great status, a sort of one-hit wonder, I agree. On the other hand, the discovery he made is about as concrete as you can get. It's something that the average well-informed reader can understand. If you don't take the approach of showing the pathway in physics then you jump right into Schrödinger. Take a look at the Hyperphysics site (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/hframe.html) and how they introduce quantum physics. The minute you get into Schrödinger it is entirely abstract, and terms such as "Hamiltonian" and "Hermitian" are used without definition. The full Wikipedia article starts with high level math. So in both those approaches the reader who doesn't know the math has to either work out the math or take conclusions on faith.
:I haven't even edited the article form Schrödinger on, but I think that it is possible, on the basis of one of the graphs in the Hyperphysics (?) site, to show how the discontinuous picture of something like the hydrogen bright-line spectrum, which is sort of like a bar graph in appearance, can be converted into a continuous picture by means of Schrödinger's math. That way the reader gets an intelligible bridge from a Will Shorts kind of math puzzle to a higher math picture that really requires professional training to understand. The alternative is a "OU! AH!" kind of mystification.[[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 15:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Line 300:
==== Full quantum mechanical theory (Heisenberg and Born) ====
I will replace the currently incorrect matrices with reduced size versions that are formulated in accord with Heisenberg's paper of 1925. If there is no objection to the draft at [[User:Patrick0Moran/Rewrite_QM#The_new_quantum_mechanics]] I will make a full replacement in a couple of days. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 21:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
:I feel the mathematics in your rewrite, although important, is just far beyond what should be in an "introduction". I think this article should have almost no mathematics, except possibly simple things like the Uncertainty principle and ''E = hν''. --[[User:Chetvorno|<
::Sometimes not having important content is more confusing than something that looks intimidating. The article could just say that Balmer had come out of obscurity to hand scientists the answer that they could not find, and the reader might carry away the impression that Balmer's formula must be something very difficult. When readers go to the advanced articles on quantum physics they are likely to be introduced to daunting equations in high math. In this article the only equations that would be that intimidating are those concerned with calculating transition amplitudes, and they clearly would not be suitable.
::Fortunately not only are the equations that predict the bright-line spectrum simple, but there is a website that lets visitors plug in numbers and get back frequencies, wavelengths, etc. Readers do not even have to look at the equations to understand the text, but they are there if the reader wants them.
Line 339:
*Is there any need for this section in an introductory article? I think readers who go beyond the scope of the article might encounter it, but their need would only occur at that point. Perhaps a very brief paragraph and then a sub-article? If I hear no objection I will reduce or delete this section in the next few days. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 18:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
:I agree. --[[User:Chetvorno|<
::I moved most of the content to a sub-article. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Line 366:
:Has anyone found good surveys/definitions of the interpretations?[[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 18:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
::Interpretations are an advanced, speculative subject, and mostly irrelevant to the observed results of experiments, which is the everyday use of QM. All the interpretations agree on what is observed - wavefunction collapse. It's going to be hard enough in this introduction to explain wavefunction collapse and wave-particle duality in a way that nontechnical people will understand. I suggest not getting into interpretations. --[[User:Chetvorno|<
:::I'm not even sure about wavefunction collapse. ;-) Maybe the best idea is to take the whole section out, at least until such time as something makes it seem imperative to have anything more than a link to someplace else. [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 00:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
| |||