This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The section "The hydrogen atom: no spin-orbit coupling" says
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)However the ref actually says
I think the ref could be read as "would all be swell quantum numbers however they are not ". Johnjbarton ( talk) 02:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
At least as written here, the section "Weaker statement of conservation" is not directly related to the article.
The section reads like the topic is "conservation laws", part I and II. Good quantum numbers are only mentioned parenthetically in part I. I think the text should focus on the article topic.
(I also find these little math theorems to be annoying in physics articles. Not even a hint about what kinds of physical systems these issues bear upon.)
The next section "Analogy with classical mechanics" is interesting but flawed in two ways: without a reference that analogy appears to be WP:OR and the appearance of the Ehrenfest Theorem here and in case II (which does not explicitly discuss good quantum numbers) makes me wonder: how is this analogy related to the article topic? Johnjbarton ( talk) 16:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
The introduction has a paragraph on collisions which reflects the only meaning of "good quantum number" that I understood. Nothing in the article discusses collisions and thus we have no reference for this aspect. (I wonder if "good quantum number" has any practical use outside of collisions? The behavior of a system under a time-varying interaction naturally focuses on the varying parts, not the invariant part). Johnjbarton ( talk) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The section "The hydrogen atom: no spin-orbit coupling" says
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)However the ref actually says
I think the ref could be read as "would all be swell quantum numbers however they are not ". Johnjbarton ( talk) 02:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
At least as written here, the section "Weaker statement of conservation" is not directly related to the article.
The section reads like the topic is "conservation laws", part I and II. Good quantum numbers are only mentioned parenthetically in part I. I think the text should focus on the article topic.
(I also find these little math theorems to be annoying in physics articles. Not even a hint about what kinds of physical systems these issues bear upon.)
The next section "Analogy with classical mechanics" is interesting but flawed in two ways: without a reference that analogy appears to be WP:OR and the appearance of the Ehrenfest Theorem here and in case II (which does not explicitly discuss good quantum numbers) makes me wonder: how is this analogy related to the article topic? Johnjbarton ( talk) 16:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
The introduction has a paragraph on collisions which reflects the only meaning of "good quantum number" that I understood. Nothing in the article discusses collisions and thus we have no reference for this aspect. (I wonder if "good quantum number" has any practical use outside of collisions? The behavior of a system under a time-varying interaction naturally focuses on the varying parts, not the invariant part). Johnjbarton ( talk) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)