Talk:Wave model

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Medinage. Peer reviewers: LewiscaSSU, Rodristeph, Anth 382 Project, Timpickard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

old deletion debate

For a January 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wave model

Untitled

Sorry to say this, but this page is at best redundant and at worst misleading. To begin with: There is no single 'wave model' of the atom, if by that you mean a quantum physical model, there are a whole bunch of models. It is wrong to portray these as some kind of successor to the Bohr model, since the Schrödinger equation can be applied to any physical system, not just atoms. Also, the approaches are rather similar regardless of physical system.

What is meant by model of an atom? In the study of atoms/molecules only the electrons are considered, with the nucleus being treated as an infinitely small point charge, since it has virtually no effect on the orbital electrons, except for its charge. And the study of the atomic nucleus, in nuclear physics, usually ignores the electrons for the same reason.

As for the Quantum Physical model of the atom, there are both non-relativistic (Schrödinger equation) and relativistic (Dirac equation) models, as well as Density Functional Theory, which does not deal with the Schrödinger equation itself but a reformulation of it in electron density terms. The Schrödinger equation cannot be solved analytically/exactly for anything other than the hydrogenic atom (single electron atom with any nuclear charge). So there are a number of models using different approximations and approaches to numerically calculate the wave equation of the electrons. (NOT the probability. However, the probability density can be calculated directly from a given wave function, as it is the square of the wave function.)

This article is trying to reduce an entire field of study to a single 'model'. It's confusing and inaccurate. See the entries on Computational chemistry, Quantum chemistry, Hartree-Fock, Atomic orbitals, molecular orbital theory and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.242.128.121 (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right. Redirected to the article on the field, i.e. quantum chemistry -- Tim Starling 02:45, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this article is referring the the Wave Model in Linguistics, perhaps this should be specified in the article.

Medinage (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Medinage

Image

While it's always nice to have diagrams, especially w/r/t abtruse subjects like this, the one currently being used on the page seems to have barely any relation to the concept being discussed. The article discusses diminishing effects of linguistic changes; the diagram seems to discuss various linguistic regions and their overlapping boundaries. The article says the concept should point to harmonization of nearby languages; the diagram seems to suggest that its language will break up into numerous dialects or new languages. If someone in the field could find something more appropriate or clear up the article so it matches the diagram, that'd be peachy. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a historical linguist, but I think it's the discussion, not the diagram, that is wrong. Specifically, "new features of a language spread from a central point" is misleading: the idea is that new features spread from *many* points--hence the multiple, partially overlapping circles, each with their central point.Mcswell (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments before starting work on this article

This article is really a start class so we should not expect too much from it. The discussion of deletion above is a case of mistaken identity. This topic is the language wave model not the atomic one. As far as it being the discussion not the article that is wrong, well, I needed a good chuckle today. But, it is true and untrue. The article is in deficit because it is really a start class. So, you might as well not waste your time on it until something substantial is there. True, the discussion is not to the point. However, as I said, the point has not been made. You'd like someone to work on it. Looks like I'm up to bat. I just finished the sister article, Tree model. I've been looking at this start article for a long time wondering when someone would get around to it. Looks like it is me. One more brief point. The intro looked to me like plagiarism so I ran the words thru the machine. To my surprise I found a conspiracy to plagiarize among the book authors. Why this article? They all say the same thing, the concentric circle of diminishing amplitude. Maybe that is THE standard thing you say about the wave model. It seems as though I will have to trace this concept back. This is a major concept in historical linguistics by the way. You probably can find some better write-ups under Isogloss and Dialect continuum and borrowing. I guess the topic is a bit dry. Not much romantic or glamorous about it. Still, if we are going to have Tree model we certainly need its complement, wave model.Dave (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Clarification requests

I appreciate your clarification requests. I did anticipate some, believe it or not. At this moment I must ask for deferment until more is done on the article. In a sense I'm introducing what is not there yet. I'll be doing this in conjunction with some others while the run lasts. It's better to do it while the information from lookups in still in your mind. Thanks for your requests.Dave (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

PS. On one of them, what Schmidt had needs clarification. What did he mean by weakening? I used less effective. I could have quoted Schmidt and I think that will be quoted below but It isn't too clear how language features can weaken. But, I can't really respond until more is done. Also there is the problem of what should be said in an intro. I might end by condensing that out. If it has to be explained it belongs below with refs.Dave (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I was aware that when I added the "clarification" request, it was sometimes ambiguous whether the lack of clarity was due to your text, or to Schmidt's own formulations. And indeed, one case in point was that strange idea that language features weaken. In most cases this does not make sense, e.g. if the isogloss is about presence or absence of a given form, or given sound. The only form of weakening I can think of would be a Rhenish fan kind of situation – but this is not so frequent as to be taken as the prototypical example of isoglosses, is it? Of course, if this was indeed what Schmidt had in mind (are there precise quotes about this?), then this conception will have to be included in the entry of course. What I want to know, ultimately, is whether this weakening argument is really essential to Wellentheorie, or not; if we think in terms of just diffusion of language change (Yes/No isoglosses, with no such thing as weakening), don't we still have a Wave model? Anyway, good luck with this entry, I'm looking forward to your progress. Womtelo (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wave model (linguistics)

The better title is Wave model (linguistics): look at the disambiguations under Wave (disambiguation). The ordinary well-read Wikipedia reader will associate "Wave model" with "a disturbance that propagates through space and time, transferring energy", from which linguistics has extrapolated it.--Wetman (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Article re-examination

I worked on this article earlier, so I appear in the discussion above as "Dave." To tell you the truth I do not much recognize it now. I think it has been greatly altered, but I remember the article was under heavy attack at the time and did not seem to be able to achieve stability. So I went off in a huff. Revisiting it now, I don't know who said what. If I said any of that stuff, it certainly needs improvement. I suspect I did not, as it isn't my style. I'm not coming back at the moment but I think I need to point out a few things. First, the article is important. To abandon it is to lose a valuable theory. Second, though the author may be generally right in the opinions, still, they are not presented as the opinions of the experts. This is not general knowledge, so the experts need to be brought in. The writing could be more professional. Third, even though this article was attacked when I was working on it, it has not improved; in fact, it appears to have declined. I notice up there in the discussion the name of one of the more blatent attackers. What is it, me? Aren't you trying to develop an encyclopedia or are you mainly interested in the people game aspect? No one can work effectively on an article under attack. Why don't you just lay off? Now, as an aside, I looked at the disambig again. It needs just as much work as the article. There are too many categories. Most of those can be combined. I suspect also there are other disambigs that may apply. Well, I got to go along now, but what can you lose by working on the article? I don't see how you could make it any worse, and it needs to be done.Botteville (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The neutrality tag

The tag invites us to a discussion of neutrality that isn't there. Oversight? What's the matter, don't you want to face up to your assertions? This sort of thing is not criticism, it is sniping. Come out, come out, wherever you are! I would remove it right now as a change without a reason, but in fact the intro IS unsupported by quotes from Schlechter and subsequent linguists. I presume you must have had something like that in mind, but why should I have to presume? I will defer removal of the tag until after I have had a chance to rewrite the intro. I don't like it either as a matter of fact even though it is mainly true. But, we want to present the theory as it was, not larded with prejudicial statements.Botteville (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The name

Regarding Wetman's name change suggestion, well, it is not a bad suggestion. It often happens on WP that the first article on a topic preempts a general name that best belongs a different topic. The disambig usually handles that contingency. I presume Wetman meant to start a discussion on it or he would have just changed it himself. That discussion can go here. I vote for the change but there are a lot of disambig items out there and a lot of articles on waves so I presume such a change will mean a lot of dog work. There is a tag I believe requesting a name change. For now I am going to start by making the diasmbig more accessible and clearer if I can. Tell us what you think, will you?Botteville (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

bad metaphor

I don't like the language about changes propagating in "concentric circles" until they get too "weak" to continue. For one thing, one should not expect the speed of propagation to be constant all along the perimeter; therefore the boundary is unlikely to be a circle, let alone one whose center stays fixed at the point of innovation. What makes the innovation strong in one place (e.g., association with a prestigious group) may make it weak elsewhere (where that group's elitism is resented). —Tamfang (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Applied context

This article does not seem to include any discussion or reference to real world applications or examples, and refers primarily to theory. Providing examples may help to create a better understanding the topic, especially compared to other models of language change. LewiscaSSU (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. I just added a section to that effect. Best, Womtelo (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC).

In regards to concern over sources, I will be adding an accredited source with diagrams of the Wave Model, along with reference to other models.

Medinage (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Medinage

References