Talk:Basic concepts of quantum mechanics/Archive 1

Archive 1

What is the Basic concepts of quantum mechanics page?

The above page was developed and submitted to the WP:Community in order to provide a simple, straightforward introduction to quantum mechanics for people who really don't know much about the subject but perhaps want to learn more. It was also designed to put readers on the path to other articles that might enlighten them further.

There is already an Introduction to quantum mechanics page designed to do somewhat the same thing. This present page, Basic concepts of quantum mechanics, is even simpler and is devoid of charts, graphs, and mathematical formulae. There are illustrations and pull-out quotes that serve to entice the untutored reader to examine the phenomenon on a historic, philosophical, and scientific basis.

Each section of the present article has been submitted to this readability analyzer, and all of them have been rated at an "average" readership scale. It is instructive to note that most of the associated WP articles {For more information, see ...) were tested the same way in June 2009 and were found to be posted at the "difficult" level, according to this particular readability scale,

It is hoped that this article will continue to be found accessible and attractive for the average secondary-school student.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Disputed content

As of this writing, this article is literally 100% the work of its creator, GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs). He has reverted all nontrivial changes by others, with the exception of TimothyRias's deletion of the claim that Stephen Hawking is a Nobel laureate. GeorgeLouis admits that his own understanding of quantum mechanics is limited, and even if he didn't admit it it would be clear from his writing. As far as I can tell from his comments and actions, he has a personal vision of how quantum mechanics ought to be introduced, and has undone others' changes to this article because they don't agree with his vision. This is a violation of WP:OWN. It would still be against policy even if I agreed with his vision, which I don't; I think the article is poorly written and misleading.

Previous discussion of this is scattered over various pages, including

• Talk:Introduction to quantum mechanics#Basic concepts of quantum mechanics
• User talk:BenRG#Quantum mechanics
• User talk:GeorgeLouis#Basic concepts of quantum mechanics

I think the article should simply be moved into userspace (or to GeorgeLouis's personal web site). -- BenRG (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As is normal with Wikipedia, if there are factual errors, any person with access to a computer has the ability to correct them. I don't believe this includes making changes because one does not like the style of writing. Yours in friendship. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This article should be moved into userspace. It has very little value to add to Wikipedia. --Robin (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Once the Introduction to quantum mechanics page is truly rewritten as an introductory article for the nonspecialist, then perhaps I might agree with you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Basic concepts of quantum mechanics

This recent edit of yours was the final straw for me. You politely asked CristianCantoro to explain what is wrong with the image. I gave you that explanation a couple of weeks ago, when you reverted my similar edit, and you never replied. You seem to ignore people as long as the current version of the article is your preferred one. You also removed the {{See also|Introduction to Quantum Mechanics}} that CristianCantoro added. I don't see how you can justify not linking that article—an article collaborated on by many editors, with which your single-author article is essentially in competition. In fact, you undid 100% of the changes by CristianCantoro, restoring the article to a version written entirely by you. The only substantive third-party change to the article since its creation that you didn't undo was this one. I also don't see how you can justify linking to your article from Arthur Stanley Eddington, George Johnstone Stoney‎, Banesh Hoffmann, and many other pages that don't (and shouldn't) link to Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. How is this anything but self-promotion?

I have reinserted the line which CristianCantaro so kindly added not too long ago and which I excised through inadvertence. I certainly hope that a reference to the Basic concepts of quantum mechanics page will be added to the Introduction to quantum mechanics page, but I will leave that task to somebody else if he or she is so minded. Concerning the animated image (that you mentioned in another message), which I chose to feature because it is really a show-stopper and might attract untutored readers to this page, I am under the impression that the caption is correct, but if it is not, I hope it can be changed so the image can be retained. As for the "See also" links that I added to several WP pages (all of which bear reference to the people or the items touched on here at Basic concepts of quantum mechanics and all of which were reverted by another editor), I refer everybody to Wikipedia:Linking, which states, among other things:

Links are intended to provide instant pathways to locations both within and outside the project that are likely to increase our readers' understanding of the topic at hand.

I hope this answers some of your concerns. Sincerely, my best, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Copied from User_talk:GeorgeLouis#Basic_concepts_of_quantum_mechanics

I'm mystified by your behavior. You're an established editor who's worked on articles in many other subject areas, areas in which I assume you have some expertise. You seem to realize that quantum mechanics is not your strong suit, and you're not qualified to judge the accuracy of articles on the subject. Yet you write an article on the subject and revert all attempts to improve it. Please stop. The fact that you can't see what's wrong with that image doesn't make it right. -- BenRG (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, hi, Ben. Sorry I did not see your response, which you mentioned above since I don't bookmark your page. This discussion should really be going on at Talk:Basic_concepts_of_quantum_mechanics. I notice that today, on 6 July, you posted a comment on that page, which is the first comment of any great length that I have seen on this subject, except several weeks ago on the Talk:Introduction to quantum mechanics, which I don't follow either. I will copy this exchange of messages to the Talk:Basic_concepts_of_quantum_mechanics page and reply over there. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Both this article and Introduction to quantum mechanics start with the text

"This article is intended as an accessible, non-technical introduction to the subject. For the main encyclopedia article, see Quantum mechanics."

One article on this subject should be sufficient! (Although I think we should base the combined article on the existing Introduction to quantum mechanics article, I think both articles as they currently stand have problems - Introduction doesn't seem very accessible, while Basics has several basic errors.) Djr32 (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Basics" is a fork. It was created by someone who resists all changes to his writings on this subject. The likelihood of getting a successful merger is slim. The "Introduction" was criticized for having too much history when there is in fact a separate article on the history of quantum mechanics, and the "Basics" article is mostly history. So if it is to be merged anywhere it should go with the history article. P0M (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the history, but I think it's worth trying to avoid forking such an important article. I take your point that some of this material would be better being merged into the "History of" article. Djr32 (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you will look at the current Introduction to quantum mechanics, you will find an article that is far, far beyond the introductory level. I made an attempt at one point to simplify the aforementioned article, but it was reverted. The current Basic concepts of quantum mechanics was intended, as noted on its Talk Page, to present a very basic introduction that leads the advanced student or researcher to more detailed topics elsewhere. I am at a loss to know who the "someone who resists all changes to his writings" could be. If Patrick0Moran could elucidate, I should be entirely grateful. Otherwise, I would suspect that he or she is talking about me, which would be personally hurtful and far from the truth. It would be very nice if errors are found in this article that they be fixed by those who find them. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just look at the "response" to a criticism that was transferred to this page (see the above) but never answered. Then check for other responses to critiques and/or changes in his fork.P0M (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

While I still think that in the end there should only be one "Intro to QM" article, I recognise that the current Intro article is quite difficult. Perhaps we could start by improving this article, and then merge them. I've made a start on this, but there's still lots to do. Djr32 (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics is inherently difficult, if only because what happens on that scale is so unlike what we see on the macro level.

The simplest and most accessible book on quantum mechanics is one in the Introducing series that softens the blow by using lots of neat cartoons. Introducing Quantum Theory, by J.P, McEvoy and Oscar Zarate. It goes into lots of details on things that would go into other articles on Wikipedia. It definitely is not any easier that what has been provided in the current Intro article. The one fault I find with it is that it absolutely screws up the discussion on matrices. It puts words into Heisenberg's "balloon," saying: "I guessed that the diffrence...pq - qp was not zero but equat to n/2 π i, where i is sqrt -1, an imaginary number." In so doing it gives no indication whatsoever that p is a matrix, not a number, and so is q. Anyway, that one substantial gripe aside, it is a good book. You can't get any easier than that without just characterizing the subject from the outside with "Golly, gee whiz, isn't science wonderful" kinds of statements. People who have not had the advantage of two years of university physics and still want to understand something deserve more than that. They don't need "quantum physics explains telepathy," and they don't need anything that creates incorrect impressions that have to be rooted out afterwards.

I tried to work with what is now the fork and was rebuffed. I made one change that cleared up a couple of very serious misrepresentations. I received profuse thanks from Mr. Louis, and then he reintroduced one of the errors right away. I have no objection to an article that does the general kind of thing that the fork tries to do. As I just said, I even tried to work with it. But it cannot be permitted to contain mistakes.

That being said,I reject the idea that the person who is not in a physics major somewhere needs to be restricted to the "basic" kind of information. There is much that can be understood by anybody who can handle the meaning of 1/x^2, and that discussion takes them to a fork in the road. One fork has a magnificent monument, the Uncertainty Principle, and readers can see how Heisenberg and Born got there even if they are not ready to tread over the mathematical hot coals that cover that stretch of the road. Down the other fork is a veritable jungle of higher and higher maths, and they can see how that has got to be the case too because they can see that any compact formulation that covers the same grounds as sets of infinite matrices has got to be conceptually very dense.

I wasn't the one who put in the template that claims the Intro article to be accessible. It is certainly more accessible than Quantum mechanics or Matrix mechanics, but maybe it needs a "truth in advertising" notice -- "some algebra required". I have just changed that much. P0M (talk)

Merge. This article seems completely useless as an introduction to quantum mechanics. It's more like a history lesson. There is an article for that: History of quantum mechanics. This article really has no "concepts" of quantum mechanics at all. A history lesson is not a concept of quantum mechanics. I propose that anything useful from this article be salvaged and merged with the other Intro article. --Robin (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn (for the time being at least). While I suspect that we should work towards having only one introductory article, I don't think either of these articles are yet ready to be merged to create the perfect introductory article - this one still has a number of gaps and errors, though most of the worst errors have been removed, while the other one goes offputtingly far beyond being an introduction (e.g. the Full quantum mechanical theory section). Hopefully continued work on both articles will get them to a state where they can either be usefully brought together, or it is clear that they should both continue separately to serve different functions. Djr32 (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I would still recommend a merge, and then try to fix one bad article, instead of independently trying to fix two bad articles. --Robin (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Trojan wave packet

File:Trojan wavepacket.gif

Conception of a wave packet, in this case an electron circling the nucleus of an atom, illustrating the uncertainty principle.

The accompanying graphic was deleted by another editor with the comment 'misleading image - image is of a very contrived situation, not representative of an electron in an atom, will only serve to confuse the reader given that this is the lead section of "Basics of QM")' Frankly, I find the image extremely attractive (not at all confusing) and would like to know in what way it is misleading. Is it not a wave packet, and does it not illustrate the imagined path of an electron in its orbital about the nucleus of an atom? Unfortunately, the caption at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trojan_wavepacket.gif does not give very much information about it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not. It is something quite different. What do you expect, when you choose pictures solely on the basis of "attractiveness"? This is the third editor who tried to remove this image. You reverted the other two. What made you suddenly wonder if maybe your bizarre confidence in your own judgment might be a bit misplaced? You don't understand quantum mechanics. We're all ignorant of different things, as you said; can I ask you, again, to go write articles on subjects you're not ignorant of? -- BenRG (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I am not sure why I should bow to your advanced intelligence, since I don't know anything about you or how many degrees you have or how old you are (probably not very old, certainly not very mature), but can you kindly explain to me then where I can find some good sources as to just what this illustration purports to show? If you cannot, then I assume you do not know. As for "removing the image," as any fool can plainly see, the image has been removed and, to my knowledge, is still removed. I would advise you also that there are real people receiving your messages (well, in this case, a real person), and insulting him or her is certainly not exactly the kindest thing to do. If you have a priest, rabbi, spiritual counselor, or therapist, it might be wise to consult him or her for your mental health and for the happiness of those to whom you choose to send electronic messages. Your recipients really do read and react to them, you know. Yours in friendship, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Foreign sources.

Is it possible to use English-language-only sources in this basic article? Using the original German sources could be really off-putting to the novice. See Wikipedia:Foreign_sources#Non-English_sources Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk)

This topic should be covered by pretty well any textbook on QM, so please feel free to substitute a different source if you think that would be preferable. (One that was close at hand for me was A Brief History of Time - Chapter 4 in general, and page 55 in particular in my copy - but there are certainly other books which are more specifically about QM.) In fact, apart from the specific mention of the year 1927, the whole section would probably be adequately referenced by the Nobel presentation speech also currently referenced. Djr32 (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cloud of points

A quick Internet search finds no definition of "Cloud of points," which is used in this article. It sounds like a good term, but it should be Sourced. Anyone? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

George, you do realise that you wrote the bit about a "cloud of points" that you've just put a citations needed tag on, don't you? All I did was move it out of the "Uncertainty principle" section. However, it's not really a good term! It would be better to rewrite the section to use more standard (and less misleading) terminology. Djr32 (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, if I add anything, I always source it. The terminology came from the "Uncertainty Principle" section of this Introduction to Quantum Mechanics page, which I supposed had been vetted by all sorts of "expert" physicists. I'll remove it and any other unsourced info from that section. If you want to put any of it back, that would be a good idea, if there is a source attached. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC) A quick search came up with a Source. You can probably find a better one. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, yes, I see the distinction you're drawing - while you created the first version of this page, the text was copied from elsewhere. Anyway, I see you've re-written the sentence in question - your new version is definitely an improvement. The blog reference isn't ideal - again, you should be able to find a discussion of this topic in any QM textbook. (I would suggest looking at Atomic orbital model, Atomic orbital and Hydrogen-like atom, but none of those are particularly well referenced either!) Djr32 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Planck Constant

The changes made here (although obviously offered as a serious effort to inform) really expand the article beyond its rationale of being limited to "basic concepts" and should probably go into a more advanced article elsewhere. Anybody working on this article should at least accept the idea that it is merely an introduction to the subject. Otherwise, one runs the serious risk of turning the article into just another verbose version of Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. (The illustration is really nice, though.) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

George - if you don't like what I've added, please suggest improvements, but don't just revert it. (Aside from the fact that your actions are extremely rude, there were a number of errors in the old version.) Djr32 (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Links to video site searches

In response to this edit, the reason I removed the links to YouTube and Google video search results pages is because they weren't helpful. This sort of link is like telling someone that they can find lots more information by looking in the quantum mechanics section of a library - it's true, but it doesn't really leave them any better off. It would be much better to post links to specific videos which you think are useful. When I clicked on the YouTube link I got offered everything from "Ancient Yogis and Quantum Mechanics" (seems unlikely to be educational) to an MIT lecture on spectroscopic effective Hamiltonians (which might well be educational, but going straight there from "Basic concepts of quantum mechanics" might be a bit of a leap!)

You should also look at Wikipedia's guidelines on this - see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Links to search results pages are discouraged under point #9.

If no further objections, I will re-remove the links in a few days. Djr32 (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Djr32 (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What should we do with this page?

Considering the discussion had at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Basic_concepts_of_quantum_mechanics, it seems like most people do feel it is unnecessary to have two intro pages for quantum mechanics. We haven't exactly reached consensus, although I suggested the following idea which several editors did like:

Comment: It doesn't seem like we're reaching consensus. Although we all mostly agree that the article should not just be deleted, we don't have consensus on what to do. I have a proposal, which might make everyone happy.

1. First, the History of quantum mechanics article is almost entirely a list, and has very little prose. The "Timeline" section of that article (which is about 75% of the article) is very similar to the Timeline of quantum mechanics article. I propose that the "Timeline" section of History of quantum mechanics be merged with Timeline of quantum mechanics to have one comprehensive timeline of QM.
2. Now that the History of quantum mechanics has lost its timeline section, it is a really short article. What it really needs is a timeline of QM, but written in prose. Like a story. Just like it's done in Basic concepts of quantum mechanics. So lets merge Basic concepts of quantum mechanics with it at this point.

So in conclusion, I propose: History of quantum mechanics#Timeline merges with Timeline of quantum mechanics and Basic concepts of quantum mechanics merges with History of quantum mechanics. Comments? --Robin (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If no one objects to this, I'll perform the merges in a few days. --Robin (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I object to this proposal:

• Firstly, I think that the next step after the AfD "no consensus" result is to look in the round at the concept of introductory article(s) to QM, and who their intended readership is. After all, one could equally well argue that we shouldn't need any "Intro to QM" articles, as the Quantum mechanics article should cover everyone's needs. If this isn't the case then what level(s) of readership do we need to target these articles at? I think that discussion needs to be had together with the editors who have worked on the Intro to QM article. (My view on the subject is that we probably only need one intro article, and that it might be best to create it by merging this article into the Intro to QM one, while removing some of the more specialist content from the Intro to QM article - however, that's a discussion for later.)
• Secondly, I think you are still mischaracterising the Basic Concepts article as history article. It isn't. It's an introductory article for a non-specialised reader, which takes a particular pedagogical approach - that of looking at how each of the major areas of QM was developed. This isn't an uncommon or unreasonable way of introducing QM - in fact, it's roughly the approach that was followed in the first QM course I took at university. (For comparison, A Brief History of Time takes pretty well the same approach to major concepts in cosmology - it discusses the development of the science of cosmology, and it only has one equation in it!) Clearly, you might argue (and I would probably agree with you) that the Basic Concepts article misses out some important concepts, or that some parts could be better written, or go into more detail, but that doesn't change the fact that it is what it says it is, and isn't a mistitled "History of QM" article.

Djr32 (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions to solve the problem of having 2 "intro" articles for QM? From what I see at the AfD, most people were against this situation. --Robin (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, my view is that we need to start by having a discussion together with the editors involved with the Introduction to quantum mechanics article, and probably also those of the Quantum mechanics article to get a consensus on what level(s) of readership the introductory article(s) should be targeted at. (My view is that the best option would be to merge this article with Intro to QM, but I would like to see other peoples' opinions.) How about I try to draft some text for the talk pages of all three articles (proposing that the discussion should take place here), and initially post it on your talk page for feedback? Hopefully I'll have time to do that over the weekend. Djr32 (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A discussion sounds fine, but I would suggest having the discussion at the talk page of Quantum Mechanics, since that probably has the most number of active editors. --Robin (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RobinK. P0M (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any strong views on where the discussion should go - I suggested here simply because all the previous discussion is here. Wherever it goes, I suggest cross-posting it to all three talk pages, but saying that the actual discussion should take place in one place only. (Robin - I've posted some proposed text on your talk page - a week later than I'd hoped to...) Djr32 (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good. Cross-post on the other two, and discuss here perhaps? --Robin (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked for discussion on the page for matrix mechanics, but didn't notice anything there. P0M (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fuzzy writing

The article currently says, in a section that makes no other mention of any principle:

The principle states that an electron cannot be viewed as having an exact location at any given time.

The reader should not be left to guess about which (if any) principle says this. Context would seem to support only ideas about the locations of electrons in orbitals. P0M (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's probably my fault! Looking at the page history, that text was originally in a section about the uncertainty principle. I rearranged some of the text, and broke the context. (I don't think the section is very good even now that's been fixed - once the discussion about the future of this page is resolved, I might try to do a more fundamental rewrite.) Djr32 (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory assertions

The text currently says:

Quantum mechanics reveals how subatomic particles can have wave-like properties and waves can have particle-like properties. This phenomenon is known as wave–particle duality.

According to this passage there one group of entities called particles that have "wave-like" properties, and there is another group of entities called waves that have "particle-like" properties. If these two statements were correct then the next statement ought to mention "wave-particle complementarity" or something like that to indicate that waves somehow approach being particles on the one hand, and particles somehow approach being wave on the other hand, so they meet in the middle like left-handed men and right-handed men cooperating to carry the same coffin.

But wave-particle duality is a name for the fact that quantum level entities are neither wave nor particle but something else that can be tickled in one way to get it to reveal particle-like properties and tickled in another way to get it to reveal wave-like properties.P0M (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Intended readership for introductory QM articles - discussion

For a variety of reasons, there are currently two different introductory articles on Quantum Mechanics on Wikipedia (in addition to the Quantum mechanics article itself):

• Introduction to quantum mechanics, which aims to be accessible to those with a command of high school algebra, but which has been criticised for going into too much technical detail and mathematics for an introductory article.
• Basic concepts of quantum mechanics, a more descriptive article with less mathematical detail, but which has been criticised for going too much into the history and a lack of mathematical detail.

Arguably this is at least one too many introductory articles, and various ways of dealing with this issue (by merging, moving content, deleting, etc.) have been suggested without ever coming to a consensus view. Possibly the problem is that we haven't yet answered the more fundamental question: what level(s) of readership should the introductory article(s) be targeted at?

This discussion has been raised in order to generate a consensus view on this issue, which can then inform discussion of what to do with the articles. Thoughts, please? Djr32 (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me get the ball rolling by suggesting my proposal, which is what I suggested at this article's AfD last month:

Comment: It doesn't seem like we're reaching consensus. Although we all mostly agree that the article should not just be deleted, we don't have consensus on what to do. I have a proposal, which might make everyone happy.

1. First, the History of quantum mechanics article is almost entirely a list, and has very little prose. The "Timeline" section of that article (which is about 75% of the article) is very similar to the Timeline of quantum mechanics article. I propose that the "Timeline" section of History of quantum mechanics be merged with Timeline of quantum mechanics to have one comprehensive timeline of QM.
2. Now that the History of quantum mechanics has lost its timeline section, it is a really short article. What it really needs is a timeline of QM, but written in prose. Like a story. Just like it's done in Basic concepts of quantum mechanics. So lets merge Basic concepts of quantum mechanics with it at this point.

So in conclusion, I propose: History of quantum mechanics#Timeline merges with Timeline of quantum mechanics and Basic concepts of quantum mechanics merges with History of quantum mechanics. Comments? --Robin (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The rationale behind this is the following: History of QM sucks (because it's a timeline -- Timeline of QM is a separate article); Basics of QM is almost a history article, and would perfectly replace History of QM; the proposed changes will result in only 1 intro article, as it should be. So if you want a historical intro to QM, go read History, if you want a math-based intro, read intro to QM. --Robin (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Levels of math and abstractness

Let's look at how individuals at various stages of formal education might be able to approach quantum mechanics.

Level one. Pre-algebra. Reading can be taught at around age 6 or 7 for most children. (Yes, I know that some learn it much earlier, and for whatever reasons some struggle with it even after age 7.) Once the basic decoding skills are acquired, one can stumble through just about anything. Whether it is read with comprehension is something else. Learning algebra, lore has it, required greater maturity and can be taught to cohorts at around 7th grade level. So junior high school (7th and 8th grade) would probably be a transition zone between a kind of article suitable for early learners and a kind of article that would require some algebra. I do not have any statistics how many individuals who have not mastered 7th grade algebra are going to want an article on quantum mechanics, but there should be a substantial number of very bright kids world-wide who might get interested. Besides being careful to avoid jargon and the like, it may be helpful to note that younger people are often less blase about scientific phenomena, and more willing to examine experiments with relish. I remember that Einstein remained fascinated by compass needles while most if not all of the rest of us accepted some "explanation" such as, "It's due to magnetism, child. Now hush." I've noticed a tendency among many editors to insist that illustrations be down-sized to a size appropriate for books where color photos and diagrams can be almost prohibitively expensive. When paper is not involved, illustrations should be sized to the needs of the viewer. That may mean not hiding relevant details by making them so small on the screen that people who do not know what to look for may miss them.

Level two. Algebra competent. None of the math in the current Intro article goes beyond 7th grade algebra. Even supposing that a bright 7th grader would get interested in quantum mechanics somehow and then have trouble with the math, a good algebra teacher would surely be delighted to have a student come in after class with a real-world application and with strong personal motivation to get the math figured out.

Level three. Once the math crosses over to adaptations from classical physics, it goes well beyond even the calculus taught in the first-year curriculum appropriate for a student whose intended major is physics. I've looked at a fair number of popularizations of quantum mechanics, and I have yet to find any of them that can do much to elucidate matters without the use of a level of math that must require three or four years (my guess anyway) of advanced calculus classes.

Need for articles appropriate to those levels

I think it would be great to do something for the primary school readers. I learned an immense amount about electricity at that age just because I liked to electrify my friends, rig a comm system so my mom would not have to yell upstairs for me, etc. The practical experience of having wired resistors in parallel and in series, and of having thought through what was going on in real electrical circuits, made the electricity trimester a snap compared to the other 2/3 of my first year as a physics major. I also noticed at that time that there were gaps in the comprehension of electrical phenomena among grad students who had an unclear idea of what was really going on in our T-Th labs. That lack of comprehension was a failing of the educational system.

I think it is most important to do an adequate and accurate article for those who have not taken college physics. Anybody who has taken enough physics to understand the math will probably also have taken the courses in physics that use the math, so they should be very well prepared to fill any gaps in their education for themselves. The same does not apply to students who did not take university physics or perhaps took only a "physics for non-majors" class. If they were lucky, they would find Introducing Quantum Theory by McEvoy and Zarate. It does a very good job of explaining QM as far as is possible without relying on the heavy math. But that book is not the only one out there, and it could be helpful to many people to get the current Intro article that hits the high spots. (The only drawback of the Introducing book that I know of is that it fails to handle non-commuting multiplication properly.)

For those who have taken all of the prerequisites for a college or grad school course in QM, I can see the advanced level article that uses the full math treatment as a very useful compilation of the fundamentals of the field. P0M (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In my view, we need two articles: the full Quantum mechanics article (which would address P0M's level 3 readership above), and an introductory article. Rather than express the readership for the introductory article in terms of age, I was thinking of an intelligent adult whose background is not in physics - just like A Brief History of Time aimed to explain cosmology to a lay readership. Not sure exactly whether that fits into P0M's level 1 or 2. In either case, while I don't think we should be afraid of showing some of the mathematical basis to QM, I think we need to recognise that it is legitimate in an introductory article to describe and explain, rather than derive - Hawking was famously told that every equation would halve his sales! Obviously we should point out links to articles where the detail can be found. Djr32 (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: Quantum mechanics should be intended for senior undergraduate students of physics, but it should have a sufficiently comprehensive lead (four paragraphs) accessible to anyone with a high-school diploma; Introduction to quantum mechanics should be intended for someone in the last year of high school, but it should have a sufficiently comprehensive lead (four paragraphs) accessible to anyone able to read English at the level of a native speaker in middle school. Stuff more advanced than that can go to sub-articles, and stuff more basic than that can go to the Simple English Wikipedia. This is the approach all "Topic"–"Introduction to topic" article pairs should follow, IMO. ___A. di M. 20:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very impressed with this article now. Good job Djr32. This article is nothing like it use to be. This is a very good, simple, introduction to physics. I don't see how this article can be merged into Intro to QM. I don't agree that this Basics of QM is a history article, either. I think it is a Basics to QM article first, that just happens to use a chronological structure (second). This has an over-arhing structure that happens to be somewhat historical. Let's face it, this article would be very dry if, Djr32, stated and defined only the concepts of QM. Furthermore, two or three of the "popularized physcics" book that I have read present physics in this fashion.

This format is an acceptable way to learn physics in general, I am sure. The reader learns as the scientists of former years and former centuries have learned. We have the benefit that the content of this article has already been tested, established, and aceepted. We don't have to go out and discover the speed of light, or do over what Max Planck accomplished.

I think the article should be allowed to exist on Wikipedia as it is. I don't see the problem with this. This article fills a niche. I don't how Djr32 was able to accomplish this, but hx has conveyed some fundamental concepts of physics in a simpler manner than Intro to QM. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

British English vs. American English Uniformity

Switched the spelling to American English for a couple of reasons. First, some of the words were already American Spelling and second, parts of this article being merged into other articles that use quite a bit of American spelling. Otherwise you'll have the Britsh "quantised" from this article next to "quantized" in Introduction to quantum mechanics. I did this in one edit in case someone wishes to revert my changes. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 21:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The rule is that if an article is begun with English spelling, then it stays that way. It is not a matter of the personal preferences of the person doing the editing at some later time. You would need to go back to the earliest drafts (use the "history" button) and see which convention was followed. P0M (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Recommend delete

I recommend deleting this page. All the information on this page is in the "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" page, and the information there is more complete. 97.77.49.169 (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Matt Kalinski

I submit to all this page, http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/quant-ph/ka/Kalinski/1, wherein Matt Kalinski, the author of the graphic in question, speaks of wave packets in the helium atom, which leads me to believe that this graphic is indeed supposed to be that of a single electron following what he calls a "circular orbit." I refer you also to Mr. Kalinski's home page which shows (to me at least) that Mr. Kalinski really likes to use graphics in his Internet life. Unfortunately Mr. Kalinski might be hard to track down these days as he has been deported from the United States. (These may all be different Kalinskis, but I doubt it.) If anybody has additional information, I should be glad to have it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

George- If you don't mind me saying so - I think you are showing your sense of humor with this information regarding Matt Kalinski. First, the author of this graphic may not be the same Matt Kalinski, who contributed to that paper. And, second, the Matt Kalinski that got deported may be still be a different person from him. Third, the PDF introduction of this article states that this is a manipulated system. The electron has been trapped in an energy shell, and in a classical orbit. In other words, this does not occur in nature, and is being developed for technological uses. This particular experiment would not be a good or appropriate medium for conveying information or instruction about the general principles of QM. And, anyway, this graphic is a poor representation of these experiments. The graphic doesn't really show anything other than an object going in a circle. Fourth, your link to one of the Matt Kalinski's deportation is probably a little off topic. In summary, we possibly have three Kalinski's and the animation of an object going in a circle. Fifth, I think this is probably a practical joke being played by you, and I thoroughly enjoyed it I LMAO! Thanks. Ti-30X (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the information, but I actually did get in contact with the real Matt Kalinski, who not only submitted the graphic to Wiki Commons but also affirmed that he is the Kalinksi who was deported from the United States, as follows:

Yes please, you can use my movie freely for whatever you want. I dont not know if you are professional physicist or not but the picture itself shown much more then your description, so called Trojan wavepacket (from Trojan war because of so called Trojan asteroids which have the same basic physical mechanism of localization in Sun- Jupiter system - the paul trap mechanical plexi glass model what he shown at his Nobel price lecture about his trap similiar to the levitron TM - the popular toy) It is a true Bohr atom !!! like in high school texts done in the lab by Thomas Gallagher in the lab recently (2009) but with small support of rotating electric field. I wrote the Polish version of it at http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paczka_troja%C5%84ska since my thesis supervisor discovered once Polish Warsaw as second Kopenhagen with a lot of para-nuclear scientist of the rank of our German Heisenberg. I still did not write the English version of it but if no one does I will do soon. Matt

Thanks for your support in my immigration case !!!

All this, of course is Original Research, but sometimes we have to go outside the box. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, what else can I say, but, good job, George. Ti-30X (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Matt Kalinski part 2

I've had some more e-mails from Kalinski, which I will post on your talk page since you expressed interest in him. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

George, what you have posted on my talk page is totally inappropriate. In addition, I have no interest in Matt Kalinski whatsoever. You have misrepresented me, and you have mischaracterized the situation. I never gave you permission to contact Matt Kalinski on my behalf. And I repeat: I have no interest in Matt Kalinski and I never did. You made up the fact that I am interseted out of thin air. Do not post anymore messages on my talk page, no matter the content. If you do so I will start to consider this a pattern of harrasement and go from there. I want nothing to do with you. Ti-30X (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Geroge, posting a link to my talk page, here at Basic concepts of quantum mechanics talk page, is totally, absolutely, altogether, comprehensively, consummately, entirely, exactly, and flat out inappropriate. When I wrote the above - it was harrasment that might occur in the future, if you do certain actions. However, this constitutes harrasment in the present. This is beyond anything I have yet seen at Wikipedia. Have you no boundaries, sir? Have you no ethics, sir? Have you no limits, sir?

Also, may I remind you, sir, this is a talk page for basics of quantum mechanics. Your entreaties to me, and your focus on Matt Kalinski is way off topic. And this conservsation must now cease and desist. Do I need to contact several administrators, or will you quit, forthwith? Ti-30X (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Matt Kalinski part 3

Nothing is wrong about Matt Kalinski. I am the same person. I was simply not born in the United States and I was not a citizen. I stepped to the US day after graduation in Poland on so called F-1 students visa. This requires to step out of the US 10 days after graduation which is impossible if you settle down there. If you know the movie Green Card with Andie MacDowell that you know what the problem is. I work mainly privately in science and I do not care about formalities so my visa expired and I became formally illegal immigrant soon after graduation in 1997 from the University of Rochester. As world outstanding scientist I had right to US citizenship immediately on national interest but they ignored it. I originally discovered Trojan wave packets as follows: The Hamiltonian in two dimensions in circular coordinates is: H=-hbar^2/2m(d^2/r^2 dphi^2 + 1/r d/dr + d^2/dr^2) - w (hbar/i)(d/dphi) - 1/r - e r Cos(phi). First I assumed that the wave function has a large angular momentum phase simply Psi -> Psi Exp(i l phi). The new wave function Psi fulfills the Schroedinger equation with the Hamiltonian H= -hbar^2/2m d^2/dr^2 +hbar^2/2m (l^2/r^2) - 1/r - hbar^2/2 m r^2 d^2/dphi^2 -i l hbar^2/m r^2 d/ dphi - w (hbar/i)(d/dphi) - e r Cos(phi). This Hamiltonian is still nonseparable so I applied Hartree approximation to the coordinate as it was of 1D particle. Simply H = H_r + H_phi, H_r= -hbar^2/2m d^2/dr^2 +hbar^2/2m (l^2/r^2) - 1/r and H_phi = - hbar^2/2 m r_0^2 d^2/dphi^2 - e r_0 Cos(phi) where selfconsistently Hartree averages were used r_0=Av(r), Av(d/dphi)=0, Av(d/dr)=0 to decouple to separability. The wave function is therefore a product of an approximate Gaussian in r localized around r_0 from locally harmonic normal centrifugal potential + Coulomb potential and the Mathieu function in phi. Trojan wave packet is here the localized inverted pendulum state and the anty-Trojan the ground state. This is opposite to the more exact Mathieu theory, the spectrum is inverted and of the pendulum mass 1 but not -1/3 and the exact classical stability of equilibrium points is opposite but it predicts both packets right where they are at phi=0 and phi=Pi points having the angular momentum hbar l= m w r_0^2/hbar and approximately right energies.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.43.110 (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC) 

Archive 1