Talk:History of quantum mechanics

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)

I reworked the spin section and moved it up closer to Bohr atom. Please review.

Resolved

Johnjbarton (talk) 02:44, 16 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". Johnjbarton (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Used Whittaker's account.

Resolved

Johnjbarton (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Bard chatbot link?

I don't want to get into a whole AI-discussion, but is the external link to the Bard chatbot a reliable source? The first line of the linked page is "WARNING: CHATBOTS CANNOT YET BE TRUSTED"

It seems to me that this linked content is not "history of quantum mechanics" but "cute exercise in AI chat". It's equivalent to a self-published blog page one aspect of the history of QM. Would we link such a blog page?

@Guy vandegrift @ReyHahn Johnjbarton (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not really a Wikipedia editor, so the decision is yours to make. You certainly make a valid point about Bard's veracity. If you wish, I could factcheck Bard's remarks. I haven't bothered to factcheck to because I see the effort primarily as a way to get students to write essays. But I am qualified to factcheck because I wrote three papers on the teaching of quantum mechanics:

• "Accelerating wave packet solution to Schrödinger’s equation" (Am. J. Phys. 2000)
• "The maze of quantum mechanics" (Eur. J. Phys. 2002)
• "The diffraction and spreading of a wavepacket" (Am. J. Phys. 2004) --Guy vandegrift (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift Thanks; " ...I see the effort primarily as a way to get students to write essays." Can you elaborate? Which effort? Johnjbarton (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

My effort is not working out very well, but I have placed a number of "calls for essays" on various pages on Wikiversity. My motive is a disgust for social media, which seems to consist on snarky comments that appear and disappear, and that only your allies are likely to see. It started with a Wikiversity stub v:Socialism that somebody proposed for deletion. It now hosts six essays, coming in at about one essay every four months. Mine is "Is it a thing on the left". I guess I'm trying to turn Wikiversity into a place where people can write blogs, in the hope that they begin to communicate. It's probably a lost cause, but I thought I might try the same thing on the Wikiversity v:Quantum mechanics and see what happens. --Guy vandegrift (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not see much of an issue of having a Wikiversity link as external sources. External sources can be anything on-topic even blogs. I have seen much worse. However the content is not very good for somebody trying to learm the history of quantum mechanism. From experience Bard is very bad at keeping history accuracy for long time.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If you take the "purist" attitude that only links that correctly portray history belong on this page, you have a valid criticism of Bard. As I said, I am willing to factcheck Bard's take on history. My guess is that in this case, everything Bard said was true. I was surprised when Bard took issue with my claim that Schrödinger solved the problem of the "spinless non-relativistic" electron, because that is exactly what I think he did. When I read Heisenberg's 1925 paper many years ago, I was just as clueless as to what Heisenberg was thinking as I am now, and that is essentially what Bard seemed to be saying. I want to emphasize that I am not pushing for anybody to keep this link to Wikiversity. It will have caused more trouble than it's worth if this discussion goes too long. Don't hesitate to remove the link! Guy vandegrift (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Schrödinger and the wave mechanics of the Niels Bohr Institute

I just opened the article to read "Schrödinger and the wave mechanics of the Niels Bohr Institute". So disappointing! It's not a history at all. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I renamed the section to match the content, "Copenhagen interpretation" but it should just be deleted. Better would be to replace it with some history related to the topics, esp the work of Born, Heisenberg and Bohr. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Similarly the section which follows it "Application to the hydrogen atom" has almost no history. So the History has a gap between Schrodinger and Dirac, critical years for the History of QM. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)