Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
||
Line 31:
:Would a timeline help?[[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 09:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
::I agree with both [[User:71.178.238.238]]'s criticisms. The history is too much, and the overview needs to be simpler. What this introduction to QM needs to address is why QM is so much harder for people to understand than classical mechanics. What about an approach like Richard Feynman uses in his [http://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-including-Feynmans/dp/0805390456/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211409461&sr=8-1 Lectures on Physics]? He starts out by saying: "Things on a small scale behave like nothing you have any direct experience with. They don't behave like waves, they don't behave like particles, they don't behave like clouds, or billiard balls, or masses on springs. Even the experts don't understand it the way they would like, because all of our human intuition applies to large objects. But small objects just don't act the same way." Later he goes on to enumerate in simple language how small objects' behavior is different: wave - particle duality, inability to measure variables with arbitrary precision, probabilistic results of measurement, the ability of objects to be in different states simultaneously. These are the things beginners have trouble with in QM, and they should be faced head-on in this article. --[[User:Chetvorno|<
:::Your plan sounds good to me. Why don't you write a new front end? [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] ([[User talk:Patrick0Moran|talk]]) 21:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
| |||