This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
@ Johnjbarton: In Constructing Quantum Mechanics by Duncan this paper is referred as the "Umdeutung paper" do you think this is enough to change the name of the article into something more digestible? ReyHahn ( talk) 20:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Extra: the term the "Umdeutung paper" was coined by Duncan from that book but I have seen it in other books that cite Duncan like [1].-- ReyHahn ( talk) 21:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The first two sections of this paper:
has a unique albeit lightly referenced history of the relationship between Bohr's and Heisenberg's work during the critical first days. Based on my reading of the historical correspondence principle, Bub's version makes sense to me. (The rest of the article is quite abstract math).
@ Reyhahn for your information. I don't know if it is directly useful but I found it interesting. Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
@ Johnjbarton: In Constructing Quantum Mechanics by Duncan this paper is referred as the "Umdeutung paper" do you think this is enough to change the name of the article into something more digestible? ReyHahn ( talk) 20:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Extra: the term the "Umdeutung paper" was coined by Duncan from that book but I have seen it in other books that cite Duncan like [1].-- ReyHahn ( talk) 21:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The first two sections of this paper:
has a unique albeit lightly referenced history of the relationship between Bohr's and Heisenberg's work during the critical first days. Based on my reading of the historical correspondence principle, Bub's version makes sense to me. (The rest of the article is quite abstract math).
@ Reyhahn for your information. I don't know if it is directly useful but I found it interesting. Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)