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 460:
:::::::Yes, "beginner" should not be used of someone with roughly a high school education who is curious about quantum mechanics and some of its specific topics. "Newcomer" also seems a bit judgmental. The legal definition "reasonable person" doesn't feel right. Is there such a thing as an "average person"? That would be my choice. Otherwise, I am fine with "non-physicist", except that many non-physicists may be fine with mathematics. In QM, as I've said, the truth can '''only''' be expressed fully in mathematics--that is the way that Nature actually works at the atomic scale; but WP articles ought not to include any mathematics in their lead or first few paragraphs, so as not to be off-putting. [[User:David spector|David Spector]] ([[User Talk:David spector|talk]]) 15:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Both mathematics and "Ehrenfest's theorem" are forms of jargon: specialized vocabulary expressing complex ideas quickly to those trained in the subject. To be successful an "introduction" needs to focus on those un-trained in the subject but nevertheless interested. For a complex fundamental topic like QM, I would expect 'interest' to grow out of a curiosity and thus exposure to scientific and technical ideas. We shouldn't have to explain "atoms" or "electrons" as general concepts for example, but neither should we expect such a reader to be excited about the constants in Planck's blackbody radiation formula. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 15:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
== The theory of relativity? ==
The lead paragraph mentions ''the theory of relativity''. The word relativity is ambiguous and this paragraph suggests that there is only one such theory. There are at least two such theories: [[special relativity]], which deals with causation and the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum as measured in any inertial frame of reference (a frame of reference that is not being accelerated by any force), and [[general relativity]], which deals with the physics of acceleration, especially that caused by gravity. The subject matter of these two theories is clearly, from these brief definitions, quite different. The equations that embody these two theories are different. In fact, the time differences caused by these two theories, which must be corrected by the [[Global Positioning System]] for it to function with adequate accuracy, are of different magnitudes. [[User:David spector|David Spector]] ([[User Talk:David spector|talk]]) 22:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
:[[User:David spector|@David spector]] I would support removing mention of relatively altogether in the lead. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 22:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
::I see references in papers and on the Web often to "relativity" and it really annoys me, because I can't always tell which theory is being referenced. The relationship between QM and these two theories is important, yet not fully understood in physics today. [[User:David spector|David Spector]] ([[User Talk:David spector|talk]]) 22:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
:::The ambiguous mention of “the theory of relativity” in the lead of this article on quantum mechanics is minor, perhaps even trivial. In the lead it is blue linked to the Wikipedia article, and the title of that article includes the singular “theory”. The article then proceeds to resolve the ambiguity and explain the subject.
:::If Wikipedia has a problem on this matter, that problem is embedded in the article on the theory of relativity, and that is where it should be fixed. The lead to this article on quantum mechanics appears fine to me. [[User:Dolphin51|<i style="color: green;">''Dolphin''</i>]] ''([[User talk:Dolphin51|<span style="color: blue;">t</span>]])'' 00:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
:::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)
| |||