lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Normalizable wave function

message: "All wave functions which represent real particles must be normalisable,"
We should note that this is true only for bound particles. Wavefunctions of scattered particles (e.g. unbound) can be periodic (at least asymptotically) over all space and never decay even for r-> infinity. In that case other normalization techniques must be used, such as confinement to a box or dirac delta normalization.
220.245.212.40 (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

message: I strongly question the need for this article. Everything has been recently covered in the wavefunction article. This is a very short re-hash of one-dimensional cases. Should it be deleted, or merged with wavefunction, or the other way round? spill all normalization context from wavefunction to here?--Maschen (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: yes - for reasons below.--  F = q(E + v × B) 07:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually - I agree. It’s a fully and absolutely pointless article. There really is nothing to normalizing wavefunctions. Spilling content from wavefunction into here would break up a lot of continuity in that article, which concentrates on everything about wavefunctions as probability amplitudes and to introductory extent quantum states, including probability distributions and the immediate normalization conditions which follow. They fit in with the article so well it would be ruined if content was removed. All bits from here which do not overlap with wavefunction can be added (provided they are trimmed down to the essential minimum), such as the normalization invariance, but the remainder of this article is already covered. The current article was very padded and prosy about points which should be strieght-to-the-point anyway (before I edited it just now to try and make it better, but not further, due to the potential merge) - there is no point in wasting time on these things. You were right, after all. --  F = q(E + v × B) 15:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: MERGE ABOUT TO BEGIN - DON'T EDIT YET--  F = q(E + v × B) 17:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this article needed?

message: See here.--  F = q(E + v × B) 07:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget this...--  F = q(E + v × B) 15:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Normalization formulae
Talk:Optical coating

message: I understand from the picture how an AR coating can do its thing at a single wavelength, but how are they made to absorb across a spectrum? I assume it has to do with adding multiple layers, but it isn't immediately obvious how thick you would make each layer to minimize reflection across, say, the visible spectrum. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Distributed Bragg reflector covers some of this, but doesn't mention AR coatings. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Thin film optimization could have a wiki of its own... Consider the case of an anti-reflection coating centered at wavelength L. At L plus or minus some small value, the coating is still nearly a quarter wave optical thickness and performs quite well. As you begin to get farther away from L, the performance degrades since you no longer have the interference from the reflected wave working in your favor. For a single layer, you would maximize performance at a range of wavelengths by (basically) shooting for the middle of the range. There are a few common idioms of thin film coating you can use to get better performance (eg. "V-coat" or "W-coat"), and nowadays anything more complicated is done by computer. For any given series of layers, you can compute the theoretical performance. Tweak the layer thickness a bit, see what happens to the performance, and now it becomes a simple optimization problem. If you are interested in the topic, I'd recommend "Thin Film Optical Filters" By Angus Macleod. --Jkeck-wiki (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  AR coating layers and bandwidth
Talk:TNA No Surrender

message: *I'm re-adding the Senshi/Sabin match, because technically iMPACT! Radio can be considered just as official as the main website; it's hosted at TNAwrestling.com, it's presented by Jeremy Borash, and it even says "official" in the title. MarcK 12:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the iMPACT! taping that aired last night(which is official, unlike PWTorch), Senshi will defend against Chris Sabin. TJ Spyke 19:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That's fine, but we only add in announcments that are official(i.e. from TNA). TJ Spyke 04:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TNA podcast 

message: Could someone confirm that the "audience members" in the lumberjack matches were plants?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Raderick (talk • contribs) 
:Companies never admit they are plants, but i'm sure that pretty soon there will be reports who the "fans" were, I highly doubt TNA would risk using real fans as lumberjacks. TJ Spyke 06:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plants 

message: I think it would be better if the article stated who eliminated who 213.249.239.22 10:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 Man over the top rope match
Talk:Nakhon Pathom province

message: I have previously submitted information about universities here in Nakhon Pathom.  It was deleted for not being in the proper location.  Where shall we put it then? 202.28.180.201 01:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Phase factor

message: The phase factor article is horrible. It doesn't discuss relative or global phase factors. It doesn't give examples or math showing how to determine whether something is a relative or global phase factor. Unfortunately, I can't fix it since I don't know how to find out if states have a relative or global phase factor (I'm trying to understand that myself). The book I'm reading says a and b have a relative phase factor if a = exp(i theta)b for some real theta.
Can someone who understands this material please improve the article?
66.190.95.192 (talk) 21:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

message: It would be usefull to explain something about the phase conventions.--212.128.134.130 (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condon-Shortley phase convention
Talk:Loc Blocs

message: Gargamel's Castle Loc Blocs. Glow in the Dark Loc Blocs set featuring evil Gargamel and his cat Azrael. Loc Blocs are lego-like plastic blocks perfect for building creations such as Gargamel's Castle! This set includes special pieces that glow in the dark (very scary) and two vinyl character pieces (Gargamel and Azrael) that attach perfectly to any of the loc bloc pieces. There are 435 pieces in this Smurf toy set. From the 1980's. Made by Entex.
There were a total of 5 different Smurf Loc Blocs sets made: Gargamel's Castle, Dr. Smurf's Office, Smurf House, Papa Smurf's Laboratory, and Giant Pre-School Smurf Loc Blocs.
I, like many kids had parents who liked to say "every bit as good" so I ened-up with cheap knock-off brands of just about everything when I was a kid. Brix-Blox instead of Legos was no exception.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Info to add to the article
Talk:Wanlockhead

message: The pub is probably not the highest in Scotland.
See the Alargue Arms at Cock Bridge. http://www.bing.com/maps/#JndoZXJlMT1jb2NrK2JyaWRnZSZiYj0xMi41OTY2NjE1MDIwNzQlN2UxMy4zMjIyMzI0NDAxMTQlN2UxMi41MDMzMzA2ODY3ODc2JTdlMTMuMjExMTY3NTI5MjI1Mw==  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.214.180 (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Elevation

message: The reference footnote 2 after the 410m height, which refers to Bing, appears to be self-fulfilling and circular as the information on Bing appears to be a direct quotation of the same part of this Wikipedia article. It's therefore not a citation to refer to somewhere else on the web copying what you have written! I do not know whether to delete the citation as it then leaves the 410m claim unsupported and unreferenced. Surely there would be sources, such as Ordnance Survey, supporting the claim? aspaa (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Height of the village

message: I think the caption on the photograph is wrong. The library is in its own building, where it always was, once it outgrew its original location. The museum is in what i recall was a blacksmith's smiddy, not the library. Someone please confirm before I edit it.
Tiger99 (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Library and Museum buildings
Talk:Glorious Brilliance

message: However, in a classic bait and switch...
The article is linked, but reading that article and the description on this page, it doesn't seem that this is an accurate description of the tactic used. I have not seen the episode, but the two articles don't seem to be in agreement. z4ns4tsu\talk 02:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably based it on an earlier version of the article that somewhat agreed. I'll dig for better phrasing (but you can meanwhile zap it if you like). Magus Melchior 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording Change Needed
Talk:Pressure-fed engine

message: (here I am restating the question, without my mis-presumption about thermodynamic cycles)
I'm wondering if we have sources that refer to this as a pressure-fed cycle rather than a pressure-fed engine?  In the limited rocket engine literature I've run into (admittedly, only a few AIAA papers), the term seems to be used to define a type of engine, and the pressure-fed/pump-fed distinction does not seem to actually be cycle of the rocket engine at all, but rather just a source of power for the fluid pressure to drive the propellant into the combustion chamber.
The article itself mentions "cycle" only twice , in the obligatory first line of the lede where the article title is supposed to be recapitulated, and in an introductory sentence to a list of pressure-fed engines at the end of the body of the article.  Yet the article mentions pressure-fed engine (or pressure-fed engine, pressure-fed engines, or pressure-fed liquid fuel engines) five times.
If so, then the name of the article may just be an inadvertent artifact of how the article was originally created in Wikipedia, and it might be time for a move to make the article name more in line with the terminology that is widely used in the rocket engine technical literature.
So, still looking for any sources in the literature that show this is commonly referred to as a cycle.  N2e (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: With no source in the literature found for the propellant pressure source being considered a unique rocket cycle, have moved that page to Pressure-fed engine (rocket), per discussion.  N2e (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   Pressure-fed ''cycle''?   or Pressure-fed ''engine''? (restated) 
Talk:Protoplanetary nebula

message: Is "Post-AGB" (post asymptotic giant branch) an acceptable synonym for a PPN?  I think it's a better term, but I'm not sure how widely accepted it is.  --130.253.240.168 15:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see the term used in the literature when I wrote most of this, but I wasn't looking for it either.  You could try an abstract search. WilliamKF 01:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and no.  Post-AGB is mostly synonymous with PPN (which may stand for proto- or pre-planetary nebula; the latter is becoming more common and preferred because it's less confusing), but there may be post-AGB objects that will not evolve into PN, which may make Post-AGB a broader category.  Objects called "lazy post-AGBs" have been mentioned but not well studied in some literature; I don't know if any of it is accessible via ADS because the article I'm referring to is in a conference proceeding: "post-AGB objects as a phase of stellar evolution", which has a few articles that discuss naming conventions briefly. --Keflavich 14:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Would it be appropriate to include a short list of astronomers known for their work on PAGBs who are listed on wikipedia, or should we reserve that for names integrated into the article?  e.g. Sun Kwok has a wikipedia entry and is cited a few times in the article, but the article does not link to his wiki page. --Keflavich 14:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've linked from the citation author Sun Kwok to his page.  Are there other authors with articles?  WilliamKF (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Astronomers

message: A planetary nebula is a emission nebula. So, do the protoplanetary nebula really are a reflexion nebula or a emission nebula like the planetary nebula ? --Simon Villeneuve (talk) 02:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflection ?
Talk:Pyranometer

message: Did Anders Ångström invent this instrument?Kgrr 14:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this article about Anders Knutsson Ångström, who is the grandson of Anders Jonas Ångström, he (Knutsson) invented it. I checked out the citation and it links to a google book, although the page cannot be viewed, if you look at the table of contents, it says page 47, which is where the citation leads, is about the Ångström Pyranometer (note that there are 2 topics on page 47, the pyranometer is the second) although there's no way of confirming which Ångström invented it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedoctar (talk • contribs) 19:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Knut Ångström
Talk:Pyrometry

message: I have removed the reference to Pyrheliometer because it might be confusing. Pyrometry is the measurement of temperature (analogous to volts) but, if I understand it correctly, a pyrheliometer measures quantity of radiation (analogous to amperes). Is this right? Biscuittin (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyrheliometer
Talk:QCD vacuum

message: The subsection on String models, and the Bag model contains no mention of the subject of the article, the QCD vacuum. Deletion is recommended, and if someone wants to write a subsection perhaps on what AdS/CFT has to say on the subject that would be wonderful.  Other sections are relevant, but for a non-expert, they do not explain what the relation between the concept discussed and QCD vacuum. Examples are PCAC and gradient coupling. Seems that exert help is neede to improve this key article of the QCD category.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.192.43.74 (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  String Models
Talk:Quantum cohomology

message: It must be described that the big quantum cohomology ring is intimately related to Gromov-Witten potential. And it also brought new results and opened the window toward the new sight for enumerative geometry. --Enyokoyama (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea of quantum cup product as a deformation of the ordinary cup product is discussed in the section "Geometric interpretation". Mgnbar (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your findings. But as its application using mirror symmetry the number of rational curves on quintic three-fold is described by integration of some periods (on B model). Kontsevich and Manin illustrated some higher degree terms of them. What I'm wondering is that I should write them in the article of enumerative geometry or of this article.--Enyokoyama (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure; it depends somewhat on what you write. The subject of enumerative geometry is older and bigger than GW/QC theory, and the article Enumerative geometry should serve as a survey and introduction to that whole subject. So that article should mention, but not go into detail about, GW and QC. If you want to write something detailed, then this article or Gromov-Witten invariant is probably a more suitable place for detail. Mgnbar (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Quantum thermodynamics

message: According to the article, "... the relation E= h \nu . This paper is the dawn of quantum theory."
This relation is due to Max Planck, which he published in 1900.  Had it been due to Einstein, h would have been called Einstein's constant instead of Planck's constant.  Attributing it to Einstein misrepresents the history of quantum theory.
Einstein's contribution was to claim that light is quantized.  But that's not part of thermodynamics because it makes no mention of either temperature or statistical ensembles.  A few weeks after his initial paper giving his law, Planck explained its physical basis in terms of thermal radiators consisting of oscillators with quantized energy, which is the basis for quantum thermodynamics.  Although Planck never explained how he first came up with the law, a plausible explanation is that he noticed that the denominator in the Rayleigh-Jeans law equaled the second term in the Taylor expansion about zero of the exponential term e^{\frac{hc}{\lambda kT}} in the denominator of Wien's distribution law.  At low frequencies this term dominates subsequent terms and therefore by subtracting 1 from Wien's exponential denominator Planck obtained a single term that worked as in the Rayleigh-Jeans law at frequencies well below the Wien peak and as in Wien's law at frequencies well above the Wien peak where the denominator was so much greater than 1 that subtracting 1 made a negligible difference.
The ratio \frac{hc}{\lambda kT} contains both the fundamental quantum mechanical expression in the numerator and Boltzmann's fundamental thermodynamical expression in the denominator, leaving no doubt that Planck's law is a law of quantum thermodynamics. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The dawn of quantum theory was in 1900, not 1905
Talk:Secure Electronic Delivery

message: The customary term for this is now Document delivery supplier, and if there are no objections, I will change the title & subsequently expand it, particularly with the many limits necessary.  DGG 02:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have made major updates to this article that looked confusing before (see warning tags). I have
also changed the TITLE of the article from the current "Secure electronic delivery service" to the new
"Secure Electronic Delivery" which is the real name of the service created by the British Library,
subject of this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aptiva07 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major updates since 2007
Talk:Quantum vortex

message: (An earlier unsigned comment) What are these "for a detailed discussion see"?  There are supposed links, but they do not work.
I removed the following references from the article.  These do not seem to be especially useful as references.  Indeed, it seems likely that they were collected by a random google-search without much regard for their contents whatsoever.  Please restore any that are appropriate for the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the references above, there only two references of historical significance: the one by Feynman and the one by Abrikosov.  --Sketchjoy (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Visualising a quantum vortex from the text is difficult.  Can anyone supply a picture?
--Graham Proud (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: A picture would help

message: Highly interesting, but no reference unfortunately.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.120.75.24 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for the section "Statistical mechanics of vortex lines"
Talk:Quantum yield

message: Someone really needs to add more related photochemistry and equations to this; I'd do it right now but I have an exam in 3 hours 20 :) 
Nessa Carson (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking something similar. We need a more concrete (sourced) definition, and probably some more under the "applications" section. It's just kinda all over the place right now. I support your endeavor completely!
Rob Hurt (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Photochemistry and equations
Talk:Pyotr Dolgov

message: The story that Dolgov died a few weeks before Gagarins historic flight in April 1961, when he was testing the exit system inside a Wostok space capsule which was ejected from an aircraft in 10 000 m altitude, can also be read in DER SPIEGEL in 1973, in a reprint of a book about "Moscow's Secret Space Program". For the reference please refer to the German version of this article. 
Can any of the experts on Soviet Space history, namely our Russian friends, comment on this story? Even in the Soviet Union, where many things were possible, nobody could die two times. Was this story a complete hoax, a product of Anti-Soviet western propaganda, or was there maybe another person who died during that experiment?
--Ischtiraki (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stories and Legends about Dolgov's death 
Talk:Rabi cycle

message: Need clarification: is Rabi frequency an ordinary frequency or an angular frequency? Factor of 2pi... 124.168.208.52 (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I want to edit Rabi oscillation wikipage .Here is my  plan of work
 (1)How to prepare an oscillation experiment in quantum mechanics.
 (2)Derivation of Rabi formula in an nonperturbative procedure by means of the Pauli matrices.
 (3)Example of Rabi Oscillation in Quantum Computing and ammonia maser.
Md.S.R.Laskar (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Plan of Work

message: For grammar and small typos. 178.38.74.237 (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs proofreading 

message: This article was criticized in an Ars Technica article by John Timmer, where it is described as "mass of incomprehensible equations, sporadically interspersed with impenetrable jargon." Sanpitch (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made a quick start by fixing the consistency of states and levels in the opening paragraph, based on the introduction to the article on two-level / two-state systems. 109.158.27.60 (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critique of this article in Ars Technica 

message: "The state of a two-state quantum system can be represented as vectors of a two-dimensional complex Hilbert space, which means every state vector {\displaystyle \vert \psi \rangle } \vert \psi \rangle  is represented by good complex coordinates."
What is "good" supposed to mean here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:481B:FA01:C8C1:74FE:CE40:7EBB (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Good" complex coordinates? 

message: The article needs deep changes. The so-called "Derivation of Rabi formula .." is not at all about Rabi oscillations. The same for "How to prepare an oscillation experiment ..". I will change it at some point.
:I've written about Rabi oscillations quite a few times, so I will attempt to clean up this article. --Aisonix (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need of deep changes 

message: This section is BS --62.141.176.2 (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rabi oscillation in quantum computing 

message: In similar conditions we can have optical pumping - raising the number of excited atoms, or Rabi cycle - oscillatory behavior instead. 
Maybe it is worth to somehow compare them in these two Wikipedia articles, starting with the difference of conditions to get one or the second? Jarek Duda (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between conditions for Rabi cycle vs optical pumping?
Talk:Kandawgyi Lake

message: "...the Cantonment (modern-day downtown) of Yangon." Downtown Yangon was never the cantonment, which was located out near Shwedagon. A cantonment, in the British Indian empire (and Burma was treated as part of India) was the area where the army had its barracks and civilians has their villas. Cantonments were invariably created on the edges of existing cities. That was not the function of the downtown area, which existed before the British arrived and was always the place where the ordinary Burmese (and Chinese and Indians) lived. PiCo (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  An error? 