Template talk:Quantum mechanics

message: Many talk pages on wikipedia are a mess and difficult to follow. Let's keep this one clean and organized in a logical way, by putting a meaningful title to each talk section, and by keeping the discussion of each topic within its proper section. Put new threads at the bottom, and don't forget to date/sign your post. Thanks. (btw, are there guidelines at all, for talk pages?) AugustinMa 05:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, here. Sean Heron (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the organization of the talk page 

message: ...what about the neutron? quarks? Crappitrash 16:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added them. The template is a stub: please complete it as you find missing elements, and add the template to the relevant pages. Thanks. AugustinMa 09:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What is it about particles that merits a mention here?  Okay, they obey quantum laws -- but so does the rest of the universe; should we therefore list everything here, from electrons to elephants, gluons to galaxies?  I suggest listing no particles.  The atomic hypothesis predates 1900. --Michael C. Price talk 12:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless anyone objects I'll remove the particles from here and create a/update the particle template.  OK? --Michael C. Price talk 09:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Created Template:Particles --Michael C. Price talk 10:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing elements / Which elements to include? 

message: Is Popper's experiment really as important as the other 5? They were all devised in the early 20th century, early in the history of quantum mechanics, whereas from what I can tell from the article Popper's experiment comes from the 80s. If it is included why are the other experiments in :Category:Quantum measurement not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.146.66 (talk • contribs) 
:Please sign your posts, even if you're not logged in or haven't an account, otherwise things get really confusing for later readers.  Yes, Popper's experiment should be deleted IMO -- it seems it is probably theoretically unsound.  Certainly it doesn't have widespread acceptance as a meaningful test of any validity. --Michael C. Price talk 10:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Michael C. Price talk 03:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Papers are still being published on the relational interpretation.  I am going to add it to the box.  Quantum logic, on the other hand, is not an interpretation in its own right, and shouldn't be included here. If there are no objections, I'll remove it. --Auspex1729 (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how you arrive at the conclusion that quantum logic isn't an interpretation.  Any sources for the claim? --Michael C. Price talk 07:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Re-added quantum logic since it appears on the interpretation page. --Michael C. Price talk 08:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I arrive at the conclusion that quantum logic isn't an interpretation in the same way I arrive at the conclusion that the Dirac formalism isn't an interpretation -- they are both used and universally accepted, independent of interpretation.  What's more, this is the only place I have ever seen the claim that quantum logic is an interpretation.  I do not need a citation that it isn't one, the onus is on you to give a citation that it is, in fact, an interpretation of quantum mechanics.--Auspex1729 (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the onus is on you to argue your case over at the interpretation of quantum mechanics page, where quantum logic is listed as an interpretation. Wikipedia must be internally consistent.  BTW quantum logic is not universally accepted. Quantum logic as an interpretaton --Michael C. Price talk 14:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 10 of the 11 pages of that preprint are dedicated to summarizing the quantum mechanical formalism, using the behavior of quantum mechanics as a justification for the use of quantum logic.  The paper's title, which is "An Interpretation of Quantum Logic", not "Quantum Logic as an Interpretation" (as you have suggested), reflects this.  The paper is an insufficient and irrelevant citation.  I have, in any case, taken this to the talk page of the interpretation list page.--Auspex1729 (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that "quantum logic" has a number of meanings.  One is as an interpretation.  Anyway, it's good that the discussion should be at the interpretation talk page. --Michael C. Price talk 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popper's experiment and other trivial stuff/ Which elements to include? part II 

message: Ive done most of the changes Ive suggested.
I take back the suggestion of having a list of particles, though that might be better for a template:particle physics. There are some other areas which might need some area-specific templates, (below).-Ste|vertigo 01:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might like to look at template:particles. --Michael C. Price talk 02:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redone 

message: I am not having an easy time finding quantum communications; a new article at Physorg.com states:   "In an important step for the infant field of quantum communications, researchers from the University of Geneva in Switzerland have, for the first time, realized an “entanglement swapping” experiment with photon pairs emitted continuously by two different sources."  I hope to be able to read about this infant field soon on the Wikipedia. User:Mr Accountable --71.124.183.105 16:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum communications 

message: What has Penrose contributed to the foundations of QM?  Not as much as the others. --Michael C. Price talk 18:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Penrose made an valuable contribution: he wrote an 1100 page textbook. I have already added it to Template:Theory of everything so that they English-majors can see the dues that they are supposed to pay in terms of homework before they come here and ask us to dumb down article for them.--Truthnlove (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penrose 

message: I think quantum state belongs on the template as a "fundamental concept"...moreso than, say, the Ehrenfest theorem. Can I add it in? Swap it in for Ehrenfest? (The template's already getting quite long.) Thoughts? --Steve (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Transformation theory seems, to me, even less warrented of a spot in the "fundamental concepts" section; it's not even a full article, and as far as I can tell, it's of primarily historical interest. I would suggest taking it out. It need not be replaced (again, the template is oversized), but if it were, I think a better replacement would be Wave-particle duality, which is also primarily of historical interest, but at least it's more often discussed in and out of the physics community. Thoughts? --Steve (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Quantum state]] 

message: If no one disagrees, I will merge this template with Template:Quantum mechanics as its finally also supports collapsing.(Sheliak (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me! If you're changing links from one to the other, here's the list to make sure you get all of them: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Quantum mechanics2 Have fun :-) --Steve (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this too. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Template:Quantum mechanics]] 

message: Let's bring the Dirac equation & KG-Eq back to life in this template, so we have a smooth transition from QM to QFT where the user may click on KG-eq in the QM template and in the KG article sees the QFT template with other links which covers the broad spectrum of KG etc. (Sheliak (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Truthnlove (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topics in Template 

message: I think this article deserves a place on the template – originally I was thinking of replacing the currently redlinked "other scientists", but perhaps it could also go at the top as well. Akriasas (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly prefer that the link will be at the top, under the Introduction to qm..,too. Unfortunately the historic introduction is a little bit short, maybe someone could extend it in the future ? (Sheliak (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[History of quantum mechanics]] 

message: Please don't add to much scientists to the template, instead move them to others (see Contributors to general relativity for example). Jordan & Hawking are not very famous for QM. Restrict number to max. 10 guys. (Sheliak (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are hidden, so I see no need for an arbitrary restriction to 10. --Michael C. Price talk 14:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but when I click on show I and see a bunch of names I'll get confused. So please use others, where you can also written in which way they contribute  (esp. Hawking, he's contributions are related to QFT and definitely not for QM)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheliak (talk • contribs) 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, be serious; eleven names is hardly information overload.  As for Hawking, I added him and Bekenstein to QFT, but only Hawking to QM for his exploding black holes work (which I do regard as important enough to qualify as QM as well as QFT).  And Jordan's input was foundational, as was Everett's. --Michael C. Price talk 14:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, well, well. Do what you want. I don't regard Everett's contributions as importand as Schrödingers, Heisenbergs or Dirac's. Please, just keep in mind that you want present this information to a freshman in a clear & polished way.(Sheliak (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First point is a matter of opinion, the last is entirely valid -- but even freshmen have heard of the Pauli exclusion principle (I hope).  Adding 2nd rank physicists to "others", as you suggest, is a good idea. --Michael C. Price talk 14:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, Pauli is indeed an important person for qm, I don't want him to be removed from the list either. Bohm, von Neumann and others, I'm quite familiar with qm now, but never heard of them in this topic and as I know, all of them didn't receive a noble prize for their contributions. Hawking, though I'm an Astrophyisics, most normal guys on earth aren't intereseted in black hole evaporation. But more important he was the first guy who connectes gravity with quantum field theory.
Seeing again the QFT template with so much names, well "don't know where to start, too much to read for a brief overview". But let's stay so for the first (Sheliak (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientists 

message: I didn't realize there was a discussion page for these templates! I realize now that I was being completely rude, sorry. Here's why I did the changes:
#While Hawking's contribution to Black hole decay is enormous, his main contribution to QM proper is the suggestion that it's wrong, because black holes destroy information. This is also a very important paradox that led to much progress, but it's not really a very constructive addition, so it's hard to lump in with these guys. I think Hawking belongs on the "Quantum Gravity" template best, although he is a classical gravity guy too. Along with Hawking, there's 'tHooft and Penrose who suggest that QM needs modifying, carrying the Einstein torch.
#I think the list should end with Everett, because he sort of closed the subject. After him, it's all decoherence and quantum information theory, and not so much measurement that is the basic issue. Personally, I consider him the founder of quantum information theory, but others put it later with Zurek or Deutsch. I think that the modern work should have its own "quantum information theory" box, with Zurek and Deutch and Shor etc etc.
#Sommerfeld was shafted for the Nobel prize, we don't have to shaft him too. He single handedly created the multi-periodic generalization of old quantum theory. Bohr could not believe that classical mechanics needed so little modification.
#Kramers is a huge figure in the development of Matrix mechanics, but his greatest contributions came just before matrix mechanics was formulated. He showed that there was a correspondence (in the sense of the correspondence principle) between fourier coefficients and emission and absorption rates, and formulated the matrices with Heisenberg. Heisenberg then completed the program that he started with Kramers. Kramers also did WKB, which reinterpreted the old quantum theory in the new quantum formalism.
#I also reorganized all the people, so that their names come in approximate historical order of first important contribution. That way, a reader would sort of get the history right.
Anyway, I didn't mean to be rude, and I think that this list is a little long, but these people are all giants, I think they are all equals in the development of QM, and I don't see how to omit any of them.Likebox (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whoops! 

message: Bell, like Feynman, made contributions to QM proper and to Quantum field theory, which makes it difficult to know where to put his handle--- but his name is more often linked to the QM stuff, while the anomaly is more easily associated with Adler/Jackiw. He does come after Everett, but he is clearing up a foundational QM issue.Likebox (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bell 

message: Bose's paper founded quantum statistics. He was added to the QFT template, but I thought he was better off here. Candlin is a pet peeve--- Fermionic integration is a central tool in modern quantum theory, and it is half the path integral. There isn't a modern QM treatment that doesn't include it. But the inventor seems to have been completely ignored for some reason. Tentatively inserting these guys.Likebox (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Paul Ehrenfest? shouldn't he also be included? Dauto (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I wonder if Candlin shouldn't be moved to the QFT template?   --Michael C. Price talk 09:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bose? Candlin? 

message: I think Nonlocality deserves a place in Fundamental Concepts, even separately from Entanglement. I'm still working on improving the quality of the Quantum nonlocality article, but it is clearly an important notion and an active field of research, somewhat independently of entanglement.--Sabri Al-Safi (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum Nonlocality 

message: True, the HUP a central feature of QM, but so is the SE, although why have an equation when we could have a picture?
I propose one of:
#
#
since they capture the very basics of QM, namely; wave-particle duality, the De Broglie momentum-wavelength relation, and do suggest the position of a particle is uncertain, and complete in black boxes to give a "mysterious feel" (at least IMO, maybe not, depends what you think...), which one learns in introductory QM. The second additionally has the SE and HUP so important in QM, which are more advanced...
If there are no objections I will replace with the second. If people don't like the colours I can just change to a simpler theme, but they don't have the same feel without the black background... M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 15:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally have a hard time seeing it at 200px since there are some small features.  a13ean (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably you refer to the second? If that's a problem I will default to the first (assuming no objections). M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 22:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Particularly to the second but also to the first.  On the monitor I'm using at the moment the thin line of the lambda in particular vanishes for the top one. Also the blue doesn't have much contrast against the black.  As much as I also like the black background, I think a white one might be easier to see.  We could also try to come up with something which has less fine features -- for example maybe just the waveform or something. a13ean (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

text: As is usually the case, I have started a discussion... only to stall. Given that no-one has objected, I will replace the HUP with the 4th picture, and see what happens... M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 17:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A picture to replace the HUP? 

message: Does anyone have any issues with the addition of Quantum entanglement to the concepts drop-down section? And an addition of the QM template on the entanglement page? Thanks  EzPz (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, amazing that it was missing until now. Yes, please do! --Nanite (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New topic in concepts 

message: The section of Fundamentals contains way too many elements and isn't organised. I suggest either adding a new section where some of the lesser important topics can be moved to or to simply remove them altogether. With lesser important topics I am referring to for instance QED vaccuum, QCD vaccuum (too specific, Vacuum state should be enough), Quantum foam (is QGravity not QM), Qutrit (Qubit is already there), Quantum Annealing (is QInfo not QM). Johnie102 (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting Fundamentals into multiple sections or removing elements 

message: I think Matter waves should be in the template, a recent suggestion of User:JohnJBarton. This page used to be about "de Broglie" waves, but has been updated although it is not complete yet. Thoughts? Also, any suggestions/edits for that page are welcome. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matter wave