Talk:Matter wave

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Matter wave article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 90 days

de Broglie states his result

We had

This is a fundamental relation of the theory.
— Louis de Broglie, 1929 Nobel Lecture

with a ref to his Nobel lecture but it was deleted by @Moriarty49 with an edit summary

This was vague, and had little to no context. If more could be provided, I think it would reinforce the article

What kind of context is missing? The section is de Broglie's hypothesis and here he announces, in his own words, the key result. How can it be vague? Johnjbarton (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leibniz philosophy reference

The following content was added by @SpiralSource, removed by @William M. Connolley, then re-added.

De Broglie waves have no counterpart in classical physics.

with a ref:

Ivancheva, Ludmila (2021). "Leibniz's Monadology and its insights concerning quantum physics". Papers of BAS. Humanities and Social Sciences. 8 (2): 160–170. ISSN 2367-6248.

While the sentence is true (by definition since QM is not "classical"), the reference is inappropriate. The Monads of Gottfried Leibniz may have inspired 20th century physicists but he died in 1761 and thus had no knowledge of De Broglie's work. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, the article was not written by Leibniz. <redacted: WMC> SpiralSource (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of WP:civil. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpiralSource the text you added is off topic for the article. If you disagree you can seek consensus, see WP:BRD. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@William M. Connolley perhaps you will concur on my objection to this addition. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the ref is clearly inappropriate; also, I have ventured to edit SS's comment of 10:32 to remove incivility William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe reference

I removed a reference to

Allmendinger, T. (2016). A Classical Approach to the De Broglie-Wave Based on Bohr’s H-Atom-Model. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, 2(1), 1-15.

The paper has 10 citations, 7 by the same author and none in a mainstream review. In my opinion it is not a mainstream source and the concept is proposes is not notable. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arezu1337 I draw you attention to this discussion. I reverted your edit that included this reference. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That journal is from Science Publishing Group, a known predatory publisher. Definitely not suitable as a reference. XOR'easter (talk) 04:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Special:Diff/1255130459 copies from the reference added in the diff without quotation, which can be verified through Google Books. Since then, that part has been partially edited over but still remains mostly intact. I don't know how cases like this is handled. Naruyoko (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I rolled back to just before that diff and reapplied two changes I made. The other changes I made were just to clean up the material which you identified so we don't need them. I'll leave it to you to notify the editor concerned with this issue. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]