Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Mechanics - simplified
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Keep. This is a rather tricky one. 19 people expresed definate opnions. Of these 6 or 32% chose a simple keep as their first option, 3 chose a rename (which two others listed as a second choice), and 2 a merge to an existing article, for a total of 11 or just under 58% for keeping on en.wikipedia in some form, with a simple keep the most common chice among those 11. DES (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps merge anything useful into Quantum mechanics. Appears to be a fork of that article. android79 00:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki/Merge with simple:Quantum mechanics (which is currently just a stub). Qwghlm 00:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Note that simple:Quantum mechanics is supposed to be a translation of Quantum mechanics into simple language. The ideas aren't supposed to be simplified. dbenbenn | talk 00:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with simple:Quantum mechanics or the main article (certainly no reason for two articles with the same purpose). I strongly feel that Wikipedia is alienating the very same community for which it purports to be in existence. If the articles are insurmountable due to vocabulary and/or presentation, only the very scholarly benefit, not the masses eager to acquire its knowledge. Articles such as Astrophysics and Wing could have been written purely scientifically but instead they are written with the intent to include readers; why must the assumption be that some articles should be written to exclude? Grika Ⓣ 01:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand (with reservations). I think the main QM article should not be written as a popularization; if there's to be one, it should be a separate article. But I'm a little unhappy with the chatty style of this article; doesn't really sound encyclopedic. And I haven't checked to see if there are any clamorous errors, but popularizations usually have them, and these often result in extremely refractory misconceptions. Someone who's really competent to do so (not I!) should go over it with a fine-toothed comb. --Trovatore 05:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge with Quantum mechanics. If the main article is so incomprehensible as to require a seperate page for the layperson, then perhaps the main article is of a more technical and less encyclopaedic nature, and would benefit from the less intense wording of the simplified form. otherwise, delete as redundant.Jesse 13:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article as it stands is complete wothless garbage containing irrelevancies and inaccuracies and no sources. The contributors appear clueless as to the subject they purport to expound upon. There is nothing in the article worth keeping, expanding on or merging. People should write about what they know. This subject is legendary for its difficulty for good reason. Don't take my word for it; show the article to someone you know with advanced physics knowledge. WAS 4.250 13:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)See my changed opinion for a changed article below. WAS 4.250 16:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Quantum mechanics exists. Pilatus 15:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The current article contains inaccurate information and thus is of little value. That being said, I can see what the author was trying to do; make an esoteric subject more accessible. The current Quantum Mechanics is understandable to many people, but probably goes over the head of many readers, and thus lacks some encyclopedic value... I'm torn on this because I like the concept, but not the article.--Isotope23 15:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We are voting on the article. For a quick introduction to get the flavour of quantum mechanics one should mention the correspondence principle and the uncertainty principle – both of which are actually remarkably intuitive concepts. Those two can go into a paragraph of the main article quantum mechanics. This article here has neither and a lot of waffle to boot. Pilatus 16:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't think adding those concepts to the existing quantum mechanics will do much to make it understandable to the general public, but you are right the current article in discussion has significant problems. I'm not really the right person to rewrite it though, so I'll just abstain and see what happens.--Isotope23 17:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We are voting on the article. For a quick introduction to get the flavour of quantum mechanics one should mention the correspondence principle and the uncertainty principle – both of which are actually remarkably intuitive concepts. Those two can go into a paragraph of the main article quantum mechanics. This article here has neither and a lot of waffle to boot. Pilatus 16:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a book for youngsters --Monkbel 16:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand I was the one who started this, and then I got sidetracked by work, unfortunately. My apologies to the community. I happen to agree that this article is not anywhere near finished and I would not let all the contributions stand as they are definitely not good enough, but it was intended to invite contributions and get started. I requested that people woould contribute to the discussion as I was happy to take in suggestions and write up the article myself, and I wish people had done this. I strongly feel that there should be simplified versions of difficult topics. Frankly, as a physicist myself I hate some of the main QM article. It is not suitable as it is for an encyclopaedia article. It's written by phsicists for physicists, not for explanation. I am not convinced of merging it with simple:Quantum mechanics. That is for simple English, I was trying to use straightforward English and expand in some detail on the ideas, not quite the same thing. However, it would be better than nothing. I do NOT agree with abandoning it totally however. Remember Feynman? "If you can't explain it to a beginner you don't understand it". So, who understands the topic well enough to explain it, not regurgitate advanced textbooks? Instead of giving out, why not contribute? Paulc1001 20:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Quantum mechanics is the most fundamental scientific theory known to man. It underpins modern science and technology and even provides us with a blueprint for reality itself. And yet it has been said that if you think you understand it, you quite clearly don't. [1] Applying "If you can't explain it to a beginner you don't understand it" to Quantum Mechanics is an example being clueless with regard to this subject. WAS 4.250 01:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice selective quote there WAS! You're trotting out cliched marketing-speak to decide on a serious topic. If the subject is writing articles that explain a topic, then it's not me who is clueless. Wanna try being a bit more constructive? Paulc1001 03:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Quantum mechanics is, at least at first glance and at least in part, a mathematical machine for predicting the behaviors of microscopic particles — or, at least, of the measuring instruments we use to explore those behaviors — and in that capacity, it is spectacularly successful: in terms of power and precision, head and shoulders above any theory we have ever had. Mathematically, the theory is well understood; we know what its parts are, how they are put together, and why, in the mechanical sense (i.e., in a sense that can be answered by describing the internal grinding of gear against gear), the whole thing performs the way it does, how the information that gets fed in at one end is converted into what comes out the other. The question of what kind of a world it describes, however, is controversial; there is very little agreement, among physicists and among philosophers, about what the world is like according to quantum mechanics. Minimally interpreted, the theory describes a set of facts about the way the microscopic world impinges on the macroscopic one, how it affects our measuring instruments, described in everyday language or the language of classical mechanics. Disagreement centers on the question of what a microscopic world, which affects our apparatuses in the prescribed manner, is, or even could be, like intrinsically; or how those apparatuses could themselves be built out of microscopic parts of the sort the theory describes." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy You propose to provide a simplified version of mathematical machine for predicting the behaviors of microscopic particles by leaving out the math concepts that describe the behaviors? You propose to provide a simplified version of what the world is like according to quantum mechanics even when the experts can't? Or are you proposing others do this? It would be both useful and instructive for you to try writing a simplied version of quantum entangement (one tiny part of quantum mechanics). Posturing is easy. I encourage you to use quantum entangement to prove me wrong with an example of the type of treatment you propose for quantum mechanics. I hope this is contructive enough for you. If not, tell me why. I encourage your curiosity in quantum mechanic; I just think you should learn more about it before you jump into this task you have set for yourself. I believe the task as you have framed it will necesarily be a failure. I note that the content you have not deleted in the article is more along the lines of "history of QM". Another suggestion would be to write an article on that - the history of QM. I'm sure that would be a smashing success (if the article does not already exist - I haven't looked). Cheers. WAS 4.250 16:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- WAS, while I appreciate you are being slightly more constructive I believe you are missing the point - several times! If you would stop pasting in quotes from other people for 5 minutes it might help. (1) You seem to miss (more than once) where I wrote I happen to be an (ex-)physicist, and I spent a decade in the 'trade'. I have postgraduate qualifications from a prominent Physics Dept. I say this NOT as a boast; there are many many better-qualified physicists than me here and many better able to explain the topic to a specialist audience than I am. Rather I say this as a point of information, and also that my 'curiosity' is quite well-sated, thank you. I have already learned and forgotten more about QM than many people will ever learn (not referring to you, I don't know how much you know, you only ever paste in other's words). Actually this is an issue, I have forgotten lots of detail over the years, but I did learn it in the first place. I have never said I was the only or the best person to do this task, I'm certainly not the best-qualified physicist here, but I'm probably one of the better explainers, I would like to believe. (2) This whole idea all was meant (by me) to be a work that would take quite some time, probably by several people. You seem to think a fully-formed article just jumps out. I happened to get swamped with work recently, which is why I was not able to get back to the article, which was unfortunate timing! Maybe the article could be 'hibernated' or hidden while it's worked on - is there a way to do this??? That's why I tried to get people to contribute to the discussion, not the article itself! I know I won't personally able to do much for the next few weeks, so I would be ok with mothballing it somehow. (3) I believe it is perfectly possible to explain concepts with minimal maths. There is a grand total of 1 equation in A Brief History of Time. Of course this 'explanation' is not a full QM treatise. What I am suggesting is more like can we get across the ideas to an intelligent person who doesn't have a degree in physics. (4) These quotes you love are really not relevant, sorry. (5) On quantum entanglement, I would say that some of the article here is actually not that bad, barring the equations. It wouldn't be a terrible starting point at explaining the matter simply. (6) I think, contrary to you, that there are many decent attempts to explain QM ideas in an accessible manner, and I think it is possible to attempt to explain the nauture of the problems with it too. Of course I never said I could resolve all its problems, where did you get that from? But I can SPEAK about them! You really miss this point. What part of "non-technical introduction to QM" don't you get? I never said I was going to clear up the subject entirely, that's laughable. (7) What was left after deleting was just my own quick text, frankly that's all I want to stand over. I happen to agree with you strongly that much of the text submitted to the article was inadequate. What I did yesterday was just to revert to what I have had the time to do and called it a stub which seemed prudent. It's really very little as I'm well aware of. It wasn't meant to be a history per se, but an introduction to an article. I agree that a History of QM could be a fine article. Incidentally, I was about to remove the link from the main QM article to this, but I see it's been done, good! It can be put back later if warranted.(8) If we did a quick poll I think it is not me who would be described as posturing in this discussion. You are making great sweeping statements about how everything is impossible, pasting in quotes from other people all the time, so enough! If you can't/won't contribute then butt out and go contribute where you are able. Your confrontational tone is winning you no friends in this matter, and makes that quote on your user page hilarious! I was originally motivated by a desire to explain and invite collaboration; not to abuse, ridicule, and obfuscate. So, sorry WAS, I will reply to you no more, I have not the time or energy so don't bother trying to rise me any further. I have a life outside here. Take care. Paulc1001 19:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Quantum mechanics is, at least at first glance and at least in part, a mathematical machine for predicting the behaviors of microscopic particles — or, at least, of the measuring instruments we use to explore those behaviors — and in that capacity, it is spectacularly successful: in terms of power and precision, head and shoulders above any theory we have ever had. Mathematically, the theory is well understood; we know what its parts are, how they are put together, and why, in the mechanical sense (i.e., in a sense that can be answered by describing the internal grinding of gear against gear), the whole thing performs the way it does, how the information that gets fed in at one end is converted into what comes out the other. The question of what kind of a world it describes, however, is controversial; there is very little agreement, among physicists and among philosophers, about what the world is like according to quantum mechanics. Minimally interpreted, the theory describes a set of facts about the way the microscopic world impinges on the macroscopic one, how it affects our measuring instruments, described in everyday language or the language of classical mechanics. Disagreement centers on the question of what a microscopic world, which affects our apparatuses in the prescribed manner, is, or even could be, like intrinsically; or how those apparatuses could themselves be built out of microscopic parts of the sort the theory describes." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy You propose to provide a simplified version of mathematical machine for predicting the behaviors of microscopic particles by leaving out the math concepts that describe the behaviors? You propose to provide a simplified version of what the world is like according to quantum mechanics even when the experts can't? Or are you proposing others do this? It would be both useful and instructive for you to try writing a simplied version of quantum entangement (one tiny part of quantum mechanics). Posturing is easy. I encourage you to use quantum entangement to prove me wrong with an example of the type of treatment you propose for quantum mechanics. I hope this is contructive enough for you. If not, tell me why. I encourage your curiosity in quantum mechanic; I just think you should learn more about it before you jump into this task you have set for yourself. I believe the task as you have framed it will necesarily be a failure. I note that the content you have not deleted in the article is more along the lines of "history of QM". Another suggestion would be to write an article on that - the history of QM. I'm sure that would be a smashing success (if the article does not already exist - I haven't looked). Cheers. WAS 4.250 16:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice selective quote there WAS! You're trotting out cliched marketing-speak to decide on a serious topic. If the subject is writing articles that explain a topic, then it's not me who is clueless. Wanna try being a bit more constructive? Paulc1001 03:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Quantum mechanics is the most fundamental scientific theory known to man. It underpins modern science and technology and even provides us with a blueprint for reality itself. And yet it has been said that if you think you understand it, you quite clearly don't. [1] Applying "If you can't explain it to a beginner you don't understand it" to Quantum Mechanics is an example being clueless with regard to this subject. WAS 4.250 01:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wikibooks. This is not simple English in terms of vocabulary, but this is a simplified version of an article which might be appropriate as an introduction to a Wikibooks article on the subject. There are many, including wikibooks:Physics in English:Quantum Mechanics and wikibooks:Modern Physics:Quantum Mechanics:Contents, which need development. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand, perhaps rename to Quantum mechanics for beginners - definitely useful, and definitely necessary, given how technical our articles on physics get. I know that on a recent assignment I had in one of my astronomy courses, Special relativity for beginners was very useful for me (without suggesting that I didn't have the English vocabulary needed to understand the subject, like a page on Simple might), and we should continue doing that with other topics in physics. --Idont Havaname 02:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, rename to Quantum mechanics for beginners, per above suggestion. Special relativity for beginners seems to establish precedent (as an aside, that seems like a really useful article). --L33tminion (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, rename to Quantum mechanics for beginners, per above suggestion. - I'm the one that put the delete on this article. At that time it was unbelievably bad and no contributor seemed to have competance to do the job. Since then Paulc1001 (the creator of the article) has deleted the bad stuff and retained not QM-simplified but QM-intro or QM-beginners stuff. Therefore keeping the article but renaming it to QM - for beginners as suggested above seems to me to be the best option at this point. WAS 4.250 16:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - provide a link to any "simplified" articles in the external links section of the main article if necessary. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, rename to Quantum mechanics for beginners, per WAS. -- SCZenz 00:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and perhaps rename. — Laura Scudder | Talk 01:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or transwiki to Wikibooks, but at least do not transwiki to simple:Quantum mechanics. Wikipedia does not fork articles into different levels of expertise, does it? If quantum mechanics is incomprehensible, it should be rewritten to appeal to the average reader, perhaps with a "lighter" introduction. Karol 07:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Expand this article and improve the main QM article. I'm against renaming this article to "QM for beginners" at this time, because the main QM article is already close to such an article. That one only looks technical because it covers a lot of QM subjects in just a few pages, but it's really nothing more than what you can find in popular QM books in a condensed form.Count Iblis 12:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, do not rename, since QM for beginners implies the beginning of a journey. Most of the readers of QM simplified will not be beginners, and will have no desire to begin a journey into the depths QM. Anyway, the article, as it currently stands, is a good start; it just needs to be expanded. linas 22:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, its perfectly reasonable for a failry technical article to have an "pre-article". Klonimus 09:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.