User talk:Geo39geo

Welcome!

Hello, Geo39geo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Schrödinger equation. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! M ∧Ŝ c²ħε И_τlk 15:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schrödinger equation

Hi - sorry to revert your addition to this article, but it looks like WP:original research. No reliable secondary sources were included. Please discuss on the talk page there. Thanks, M ∧Ŝ c²ħε И_τlk 15:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maschen, thank you for your kind messages. Thank you also for reverting the contribution, at least temporarily. If correct: It may need some further editing and perhaps inserted elsewhere in the article. I kindly leave this to others to complete. The formulation has most probably been derived by others many times but not used because of the much more succinct formulation using complex numbers. For pedagogical reasons it may however be of some value. Geo39geo (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for late reply, I agree it is interesting. It's just that the wave function as a complex quantity is generally true throughout quantum mechanics, and very few references or authors seem to consider the separated real and imaginary parts of the wave function.

As a rule, whatever is most commonly covered in the literature (books, papers, monographs etc.) has most priority in any Wikipedia article, so the real-imaginary components section would be best near the end of the article.

FYI I have in the past randomly inserted derivations written from the top of my head. They were rightly reverted because they had no encyclopedic value. By contrast the section you wrote does have value, it just needs a reference.

By the way, you may create your own sandbox to draft an article, or sections of one, before copying and pasting elsewhere. There is no immediate rush to add references and you can familiarise yourself with the editing style in wikipedia. It is in your own "user space", not the mainspace of written articles. (Things which are not allowed in any user sandbox include WP:Category, or links to it from mainspace articles). There is also a central Wikipedia:Sandbox for anyone to dive in.

Hope all this helps, and I have not discouraged you from editing! M ∧Ŝ c²ħε И_τlk 17:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and sorry for the late answer. I found some (embarrassing) errors in the derivation so thank you again. Geo39geo (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]