Talk:Quantum Monte Carlo

message: Writing style set off a few alarm bells, so I googled and at least a few sections are verbatim lifts from This PhD thesis. Could be that the PhD's author added it to the article? They went to the trouble of adding the relevant references from the PhD thesis as they copied over. Sockatume 21:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problems

message: There are several topics specific to QMC that could be useful:  
better DMC, including some pictures of the basic algorithm(something like they have in the RMP by Foulkes et al)
discussion of scaling with respect to the error bars(as evidenced by the comments below, it's not that well understood)
the zero-variance theorem
the difference between the mixed and the pure estimators(this goes into DMC, I guess, although it could be separated out)
--Lucaskw 00:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do 

message: I have a question for anyone in 'the know.'  What is the advantage to evaluating an integral with the Monte Carlo method, as opposed to some other more systematic numerical method?  Ed Sanville 03:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it doesn't have an advantage per se, it's just a different approach to integrating. It turns out more efficient in some cases. Especially for precise calculations of electron correlation, but for large systems it's also very costly. Karol 10:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages (section title added) 

message: Actually relativistic effects are known for the core electrons of elements from about Sn onwards.
The Schrödinger equation does not really describe "all the elements in the world" FelixP (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativistic effects 

message: In my view, the current article has a much too narrow scope. It seems to focus entirely on solving the Schrödinger equation in real space. However, QMC algorithms play important roles also in the context of lattice problems, such as the Hubbard model (for correlated electron systems), the Heisenberg model (for quantum spin systems), the Anderson impurity model (used, e.g., for correlated impurities in metals, but also for solving the Hubbard model approximately within DMFT), and in lattice QCD. Should one extend the current article into these directions or start a new article (e.g., Quantum_Monte_Carlo (lattice) and add a disambiguation page?
--Nils Blümer (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope much too narrow 

message: I believe that this article being part of Electronic structure methods has a much too narrow scope. As it has already pointed out by someone else (Nils Blümer) there are different flavors of Quantum Monte Carlo methods which are concerned with lattice problems and many-body problems which are not at all in the field of electronic structure. For example, interacting Bose-Einstein condensates or Quantum Monte Carlo for nuclear matter. 
The general context of Quantum Monte Carlo should be that of computational approaches to the quantum many-body problem. This has already been partially done in the page many-body problem but I guess we could do better and refactor the Quantum Monte Carlo page in view of this more general framework.  Erostrato (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should not be part of "Electronic structure methods"