Talk:Wave function

message: On one hand, it is nice to pin down all mathematical and physical properties/requirements first thing (after the history).
On the other hand, it would be easier for typical readers to just see what the wave function is with examples, and the mathematical details later. Also, since the probability interpretation is what most sources present that section could be moved further up. The Hydrogen atom content in the function spaces section has been moved to the section of that example.
I tried to rearrange to see how it looks, and will not make further edits. Anyone is free to revert if they disagree. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 06:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this happened. But anyone can revert to this version. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 12:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearrangement of sections 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Wave function. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110722141558/http://amods.kaeri.re.kr/mcdf/lectnote.pdf to http://amods.kaeri.re.kr/mcdf/lectnote.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is wavefunction (one word) now a word?  (I note that the spell checker/corrector on my browser believes it is two words.)  I note that there is a redirect from the one word form, but, even more, it is used in many articles. Gah4 (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell from  it is two words.  I believe that the redirect is fine, but articles should use the two word form until the OED says it is one word. Gah4 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  one word or two? 

message: Subsection Wave function#Particle in a box is created by Maschen in 2014 by moving the content from "normalization example". However, the "normalization example" was just about normalization, it did not mention any potential, while Particle in a box is about potential infinite outside the box, and stipulates the corresponding boundary conditions (leading to discrete spectrum). So, this subsection is unsatisfactory (since 2014 till now). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We could just link to standing wave where this is all explained in the general context of waves.  Gah4 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The same problem: a sum of two terms there versus a single term (running wave) here. Also, you never have continuous spectrum in a bounded region. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

text: And, ridiculously, without any relation between k and \omega "our wavefunction" violates the Schrodinger equation. Thus, it is an example on the normalization only, with no other relation to physics. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It would be easy to extract a correct version from any introductory text. YohanN7 (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Particle in a box 

message: The phase of a wave function can be represented by a continuum of different colors. The probability density can be represented by the intensity of the color. In this way we can give full information about any 2D wave function. There is a problem of contrast. If the probability density of one part of the image is too little than the one on another part, it won't be seen. But there is a simple solution : the intensity of the color shall depend logarithmically, not linearly, on the probability density. This is a mistake I made in my previous animations (linear dependence, not logarithmic). I just thought about it. I will make use of this thought in my future animations. I hope also that others will make use of this idea. With it we can visualize many quantum wave functions.TD (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to visualize wave functions