Talk:Stationary state

message: It is not true that the ground state of a quantum field theory is always the vacuum. Indeed, in (for example) non-interacting many-body quantum field theory, the ground state is the state where all the levels are occupied up to the Fermi level. The Fock-space state corresponding to the ground state is hence something like | 1....1 > up to the Fermi level. I propose to clarify that point, by stating that it holds only for QED, QCD or other subnuclear physics quantum field theory.
:The article doesn't say this anymore. --Steve (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Vacuum

message: Sources are required. To do this I might re-write and move things around a bit so sources and referances can be added better. I will not delete anyone's work. It seems that the Bra-ket notation is used oddly. A time-varying wavefunction is not conventionally written |\Psi (t)\rangle, it should be more like |\Psi,t\rangle, or just written in usual function notation \Psi(x,t). I havn't seen it that way at any rate... I'll leave that for now - if no-one objects i'll change it myself to |\Psi,t\rangle (unless someone else does it before me).--F=q(E+v^B) (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized that wave function are time dependent usually (in the relativistic picture). Why would you remove the notation |\Psi(x,t)\rangle ? Okiokiyuki (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget it. The notation |\Psi (t)\rangle is used, it seemed strange to mix bracket notation with function notation until I realized it is used in the literature. I stopped watching this page a long time ago.--  F = q(E + v × B) 09:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-arrange and sources

message: Anyone up for spilling much of the relevant content (not already in this article) from here (lead of Time independent Schrödinger equation section) into this article, leaving only the statement of the TISE is in that section? Yes - I know I'm responsible for so much overlap, its just a suggestion to take or leave...
P.S. I don't understand perturbation theory calculations (yet - will at some point), which is why I didn't comment above. --  F = q(E + v × B) 17:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merge

message: It seems like an article on the more general term, 'stationary', in physical science would be warranted.  For instance, 'stationary' solutions are often considered in hydrodynamics and thermal/statistical mechanics. All Clues Key (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stationarity 

message: In this page is fully ommited the explanation of “Stationary state” term as it is comprehended in biology. I think it should be integrated. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.128.242 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: disambiguation

message: "For a single-particle Hamiltonian, this means that the particle has a constant probability distribution for its position, its velocity, its spin, etc.[2]"  This sentence could be misleading if the reader takes it to mean you could then measure position and velocity simultaneously. A quantum state is expressed in terms of of a set of commuting variables (preferably a complete set) and position and velocity do not commute.  What's a better way to write that sentence?  Tonyzitoatdcc (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly misleading? 

message: This article seems a fine discussion of stationary states, but somewhere there should be a discussion of non-stationary states. The mixing angle page seems to be only links, and no discussion. There are articles on specific systems, such as Neutrino_oscillation, and there is some discussion in that article, but somewhere there should be general discussion of quantum mechanical mixing, and the resulting non-stationary states. Gah4 (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-stationary states? 

message: Is it true that a 1s orbital always a stationary state, but a stationary state is not necessarily any kind of orbital? I think that orbitals always involve electrons (and only electrons), while stationary states appear to involve any entity that has energy (that has a nontrivial Hamiltonian). For example, a single photon could have a stationary state, but not an orbital. Yes? The article seems unclear on these points to me. David Spector (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orbitals and stationary states not equivalent?