![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Fock state received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Hi, I'm happy you're working to improve the physics Wikipedia. However I have some problems with your changes ( I used to use this page as a reference all the time ).
1) Please cite a source that anyone can verify and is well know. Fock states are in many condensed matter theory physics text books. The lecture notes are not well known and may have errors.
2) Proof read! There are errors on this page now and I can't trust it any more " We can generate any multimode Fock state from vacuum state by operating it by Creation operator: (equation) " is wrong, confusion of indices. This again might be a problem in the source.
3) finally, don't assume everyone reading the page understands advanced mathematics, by all means include proofs, but you shouldn't have to read the proofs and follow them to use fock states.
I think you can fix these things, I don't have time right now to do it all myself and again, I'm happy you're working on this. Rydbergite ( talk) 17:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry about the confusions. Here I'm answering to your problems:
1) Apart from the lecture note, I have mentioned, I have referred to five more books, which you can easily verify. I have verified every single topic I have included from various sources I have mentioned, and only after being sure about it, I edited that part.
2) Thanks for pointing this out. I think I have understood what you wanted to mean. I had to use these indices because the page was written using these kind of indices before me. Taking, , , etc. might reduce the confusion. And by using the term 'vacuum state' I wanted to mean that there is no particle in any of the energy states. I think this clears the confusion. (If it doesn't please, let me know.)
3) Wherever, I thought it needs a proof I have supplied it. If you think any of the statements, need proof, please let me know. I shall add the proof right away.
Thank you very much for pointing out facts which needed clarifications. I hope I could clarify the doubts. If you still have any, please let me know. Indranil1993 ( talk) 13:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I want to edit this article on Fock state. My plan of editing has five steps:
Any suggestion and discussion and question on my plan is always welcome. Please do ask if you have any doubt. I shall try to explain as far as I can. You can visit my page to know the resources I will be using till I update this page. Indranil1993 ( talk) 17:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it might make more sense to merge any new content from this page into second quantization and put a redirect from here to that article instead of duplicating a bunch of information. What does everyone else think? Natsirtguy ( talk) 23:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
This section purports to deduce something fundamental about bosons and fermions, namely that we cannot tell them apart just using the number operator, but it's not clear that anything substantive has really been said, since our hypotheses haven't been spelled out clearly enough to see that they are distinct from the conclusion.
I thought of deleting this subsection.
What I did instead was shorten it and merge it with the previous section. But it still seems a bit out of place. 178.38.89.67 ( talk) 19:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Throughout the article, ki is written, for example:
Since the basis of the underlying space is fixed the whole time, can't we systematically shorten ki to i when it is used as a subscript, e.g.
?
178.38.89.67 ( talk) 19:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Consider this text from the article:
The vacuum state or is the state of lowest energy and the expectation values of and vanish in this state:
My question: How can a or a† have an "expectation value"? They are not self-adjoint operators (not observables).
For example, a†|0> is not zero, yet <0|a†|0> = 0. This would make no sense for an observable.
178.38.89.67 ( talk) 20:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Fock state received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Hi, I'm happy you're working to improve the physics Wikipedia. However I have some problems with your changes ( I used to use this page as a reference all the time ).
1) Please cite a source that anyone can verify and is well know. Fock states are in many condensed matter theory physics text books. The lecture notes are not well known and may have errors.
2) Proof read! There are errors on this page now and I can't trust it any more " We can generate any multimode Fock state from vacuum state by operating it by Creation operator: (equation) " is wrong, confusion of indices. This again might be a problem in the source.
3) finally, don't assume everyone reading the page understands advanced mathematics, by all means include proofs, but you shouldn't have to read the proofs and follow them to use fock states.
I think you can fix these things, I don't have time right now to do it all myself and again, I'm happy you're working on this. Rydbergite ( talk) 17:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry about the confusions. Here I'm answering to your problems:
1) Apart from the lecture note, I have mentioned, I have referred to five more books, which you can easily verify. I have verified every single topic I have included from various sources I have mentioned, and only after being sure about it, I edited that part.
2) Thanks for pointing this out. I think I have understood what you wanted to mean. I had to use these indices because the page was written using these kind of indices before me. Taking, , , etc. might reduce the confusion. And by using the term 'vacuum state' I wanted to mean that there is no particle in any of the energy states. I think this clears the confusion. (If it doesn't please, let me know.)
3) Wherever, I thought it needs a proof I have supplied it. If you think any of the statements, need proof, please let me know. I shall add the proof right away.
Thank you very much for pointing out facts which needed clarifications. I hope I could clarify the doubts. If you still have any, please let me know. Indranil1993 ( talk) 13:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I want to edit this article on Fock state. My plan of editing has five steps:
Any suggestion and discussion and question on my plan is always welcome. Please do ask if you have any doubt. I shall try to explain as far as I can. You can visit my page to know the resources I will be using till I update this page. Indranil1993 ( talk) 17:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it might make more sense to merge any new content from this page into second quantization and put a redirect from here to that article instead of duplicating a bunch of information. What does everyone else think? Natsirtguy ( talk) 23:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
This section purports to deduce something fundamental about bosons and fermions, namely that we cannot tell them apart just using the number operator, but it's not clear that anything substantive has really been said, since our hypotheses haven't been spelled out clearly enough to see that they are distinct from the conclusion.
I thought of deleting this subsection.
What I did instead was shorten it and merge it with the previous section. But it still seems a bit out of place. 178.38.89.67 ( talk) 19:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Throughout the article, ki is written, for example:
Since the basis of the underlying space is fixed the whole time, can't we systematically shorten ki to i when it is used as a subscript, e.g.
?
178.38.89.67 ( talk) 19:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Consider this text from the article:
The vacuum state or is the state of lowest energy and the expectation values of and vanish in this state:
My question: How can a or a† have an "expectation value"? They are not self-adjoint operators (not observables).
For example, a†|0> is not zero, yet <0|a†|0> = 0. This would make no sense for an observable.
178.38.89.67 ( talk) 20:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)