Talk:History of quantum mechanics: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:32, 16 July 2023

Template:Vital article

History of Science B‑class High‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics: History B‑class Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by History Taskforce.

Archives: Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

I'm marking this resolved according the topic title: the History here is now better than the Introduction. However this History needs work and the Introduction is not resolved.

Resolved

Johnjbarton (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I apologize for posting there and here. I will open the discussion over at the Intro to QM talk page. Regarding this page I will actually have to read through it. I looked it over and it looks good. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The merge discussion is actually taking place here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stern-Gerlach section is incorrect.

The current section on spin describes the stern-gerlach experiment from the modern perspective rather than from the historical one appropriate for this article. Stern-Gerlach believed they proved the orbital angular momentum of the Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. Spin was unknown to them. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electrons before their discovery

I will be editing a sentence that is referenced:

In 1887, Heinrich Hertz observed that when light with sufficient frequency hits a metallic surface, the surface emits electrons.

The reference Taylor, J. R.; Zafiratos, C. D.; Dubson, M. A. (2004). Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers, does indeed say something like this but the context was not history but rather an explanation of the photoelectric effect.

Since the electron was not discovered until 1897, what Hertz observed would be called "cathode rays". Johnjbarton (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 The current section on spin describes the stern-gerlach experiment from the modern perspective rather than from the historical one appropriate for this article. Stern-Gerlach believed they proved the orbital angular momentum of the Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. Spin was unknown to them. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 21:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
+== Electrons before their discovery ==
+I will be editing a sentence that is referenced:
+''In 1887, [[Heinrich Hertz]] observed that when light with sufficient frequency hits a metallic surface, the surface emits electrons.''
+The reference Taylor, J. R.; Zafiratos, C. D.; Dubson, M. A. (2004). Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers, does indeed say something like this but the context was not history but rather an explanation of the photoelectric effect.
+Since the electron was not discovered until 1897, what Hertz observed would be called "cathode rays". [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 00:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)