Talk:History of quantum mechanics

Timeline: Original research

The timeline has the look of original research, with almost all of the references being primary (carried to an absurd extreme in the entry for Edward Raymond Andrew). It needs references from secondary sources. RockMagnetist (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the timeline to its own article. It was too large to be a table inside another article. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Some of the entries in the timeline are long for a timeline but would make nice additions to this history. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Heisenberg formulated his uncertainty principle in 1927, and the Copenhagen interpretation started to take shape at about the same time."

Before this statement, the article is good at briefly explaining the nature of things before or around introducing terms for the things. Why he had to, briefly? Did the Copenhagen interpretation depend on this principle, and if it did, then how? If it did not, then the concepts should probably be separated in the text of the article. Thank you. - 89.110.8.145 (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Overview - Bohr's reluctance

In the second paragraph of the Overview section it reads: "In 1900, the German physicist Max Planck reluctantly introduced the idea that energy is quantized in order to derive a formula [...]" Planck didn't introduce the idea that energy actually was quantized (reluctantly or otherwise). He regarded this as a mathematical trick that happened to lead to a solution of the problem of black body radiation. The idea that energy actually was quantized didn't surface until several years later. Jorgeditor (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagreement

It would be nice with a fuller account of the "debates" about how QM should be formulated in the period 1923-25. The Copenhageners were pretty much disposing of de Broglie as a crank (perhaps rightly so, he had been more than stubborn about a failed idea's validity in related areas (spectroscopy)), The Copenhageners did not like the thought of differential equations governing QM. One of very few taking de Broglie's ideas about particle waves seriously was Einstein. Another one was Schrödinger, who had had similar ideas published already 1921. I've just now learnt this from an entertaining article, Why was it Schrödinger who developed de Broglie's ideas in Historical studies in the physical sciences (can be found in JSTOR). YohanN7 (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Better history in Introduction to q.m.

Introduction to quantum mechanics calls this the Main article on history. But it has more complete information. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I have merged the Planck, photoelectric effect, and Bohr atom sections from the Introduction to quantum mechanics into this article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I merged the remaining core history into this article. Still a lot of clean up is needed.

• the intro is overgrown,
• many citations missing
• missing connections to Bohr-Sommerfeld model
• Dirac is lonely at the end
• QED, Willis Lamb not mentioned.
• Particle physics.
• Quantum computing.

(These were all issues in the original articles as well). Johnjbarton (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Where is the discussion on this merge? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a good a place as any, or you can open a new topic on this Talk page. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I opened a new section below entitled "Merge discussion" ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

More random history articles

I stumbled upon Bohr–Sommerfeld model and Old quantum theory. Wonder if there are more.... Johnjbarton (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

yes: Heisenberg's entryway to matrix mechanics Johnjbarton (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

what are you looking for? There is actually a Template:History of physics.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry I was just remarking that this article, which purports to be "History of Quantum Mechanics" is really just another "history". By merging or at least wikilinking the other histories readers should be given a more comprehensive view. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Also what is the "older quantum theory" there is the old quantum theory and the modern quantum mechanics, is this name referring to before Bohr's atom?--ReyHahn (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The term coined I believe by Whittaker is "...the Older quantum theory" in the titles for his chapters in V2. This comes out as "Old quantum theory" some places. Feel free to change it if you like, not a big deal. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The above section "Better history in Introduction to q.m." has some preliminary information.

First of all, a point I just made on another talk page is - following the history of QM is how one is introduced to QM, at least in that article. It is not about redundancy, the history has a purpose. It is not simply extra content weighing down the article, Deleting the history in Intro to QM may be detrimental to that article. If you want to do some summarizing then that might best be suited for this article. If you want to do some copy editing in the Intro to QM that is fine. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh sorry I didn't see this topic before I replied on the Introduction Talk page.

As far as I can tell, you don't object to the changes I have made to this page, the History page. Rather you object to our proposal to convert the Introduction from a focus on history to one focused on a non-mathematical, phenomena-oriented, descriptive introduction. Is that true? If so I think it would be best to follow up with discussion on Talk:Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics since that is where the changes will occur.

What do you think about this History page in its current state? Johnjbarton (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)