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 articles
The math in this article should be merged with
Klein-Gordon equation and
Schroedinger equation, and then the notion of a free particle should be discussed in a less-equation-intense fashion.
I would agree, except that the
schroedinger equation article is already quite long, and includes no solutions, only links to articles with the more common solutions. I merged the klein-gordon material into that article, as it's rather short, but I think that either the schoedinger material has to stay here or go to a special
free particle (schroedingers equation), which isn't very pretty or intuitive. --
Laura Scudder |
Talk18:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)reply
We measure its momentum precisely... I agree keeping it here and expanding it and I like how Krane, "Modern Physics" introduced the free particle when arriving at the 1D S.E., it is short and sweet. Essentially, starting with Conservation of Energy->Kinetic Energy -> de Broglie wave->Sine wave->Time Independent S.E. Then talk about the solution, which of course will be a little mathematical --
Phys-x16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Don't Merge. I think it would be great to discuss the free particle in a less math-intense fashion, but why merge the math into
Schrodinger equation? The free particle is just one of many solutions to that equation.
Pfalstad20:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Don't Merge Either keep it seperate or create a page (or even a catergory) entitled solutions of the schrodinger equation. Who ever is looking for a free particle is going to want the related equations as well be they classical or quantised, there's not really much else to say about them than their behaviour in theoretical situations. Schrodingers equation is long enough as it is. From a physics student's point of view its quite nice the way it is, as you can have methods to solutions to different types of quantum problems loaded on different tabs.
Jsmp0118:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Don't Merge I agree. The Schrodinger's article is long enough; and especially for beginners, this is a nice and short piece to have without a lot of more difficult stuff around it.--
DoctorD03:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Don't Merge I agree. The far away links between subjects are not often seen by beginners. As for an introduction, several simple ideas are easier to grasp than a complex one.
Slight ambiguity?
In the first equation we have velocity as a (bolded) vector, in the second equation we have the square of a(nonbolded italicized)quantity v, and in the statement below these we have a nonbolded nonitalicized v.
I'm assuming v = |v| and that the third v should be bolded v, but I'm not quite bold enough (no pun intended) to jump in and modify an article without some sort of confirmation. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.129.106.141 (
talk)
22:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Wrong formula
I think there is a big mistake in the quantum mechanics part. I'm not 100 % sure, but I think that the formula E=h(bar)OMEGA only apply to a PHOTON. Am I right ? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
193.54.238.42 (
talk)
12:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)reply
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 articles
The math in this article should be merged with
Klein-Gordon equation and
Schroedinger equation, and then the notion of a free particle should be discussed in a less-equation-intense fashion.
I would agree, except that the
schroedinger equation article is already quite long, and includes no solutions, only links to articles with the more common solutions. I merged the klein-gordon material into that article, as it's rather short, but I think that either the schoedinger material has to stay here or go to a special
free particle (schroedingers equation), which isn't very pretty or intuitive. --
Laura Scudder |
Talk18:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)reply
We measure its momentum precisely... I agree keeping it here and expanding it and I like how Krane, "Modern Physics" introduced the free particle when arriving at the 1D S.E., it is short and sweet. Essentially, starting with Conservation of Energy->Kinetic Energy -> de Broglie wave->Sine wave->Time Independent S.E. Then talk about the solution, which of course will be a little mathematical --
Phys-x16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Don't Merge. I think it would be great to discuss the free particle in a less math-intense fashion, but why merge the math into
Schrodinger equation? The free particle is just one of many solutions to that equation.
Pfalstad20:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Don't Merge Either keep it seperate or create a page (or even a catergory) entitled solutions of the schrodinger equation. Who ever is looking for a free particle is going to want the related equations as well be they classical or quantised, there's not really much else to say about them than their behaviour in theoretical situations. Schrodingers equation is long enough as it is. From a physics student's point of view its quite nice the way it is, as you can have methods to solutions to different types of quantum problems loaded on different tabs.
Jsmp0118:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Don't Merge I agree. The Schrodinger's article is long enough; and especially for beginners, this is a nice and short piece to have without a lot of more difficult stuff around it.--
DoctorD03:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Don't Merge I agree. The far away links between subjects are not often seen by beginners. As for an introduction, several simple ideas are easier to grasp than a complex one.
Slight ambiguity?
In the first equation we have velocity as a (bolded) vector, in the second equation we have the square of a(nonbolded italicized)quantity v, and in the statement below these we have a nonbolded nonitalicized v.
I'm assuming v = |v| and that the third v should be bolded v, but I'm not quite bold enough (no pun intended) to jump in and modify an article without some sort of confirmation. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.129.106.141 (
talk)
22:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)reply
Wrong formula
I think there is a big mistake in the quantum mechanics part. I'm not 100 % sure, but I think that the formula E=h(bar)OMEGA only apply to a PHOTON. Am I right ? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
193.54.238.42 (
talk)
12:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)reply