![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I've added the technical tag, as this article seems to be too technical. There's no introduction to the subject, and it launches into the mathematical formulism without too much background. I'm tempted to add a "clean up" tag as well, as the article seems somewhat confusing and hard to follow. Thoughts? Privong 17:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the article is too advanced for the casual reader. But this is organized in as orderly a way as mathematics will allow. I will add an introduction and a brief historical section and remove the tag. Beyond the history of Matrix mechanics nothing can be said about it without "advanced" mathematics. Such is the nature of quantum physics. -- Hfarmer 18:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
To the original Author of the page I feel it would be best to give a more basic but mathematical presentation of the matterial. By more basic what I mean is a presentation of how to solve for the state vector given the Hamiltonian operator of the interaction. I will work on this and add such a section latter. -- Hfarmer 18:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I am moving this material over to Matrix mechanics. There is no need for two articles and the topic is more commonly known by that name. DV8 2XL 20:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Heisenberg's quote "famous 'commutation relation' for the quantization condition that is at the basis of quantum mechanics" as shown on the web page:
I can't add it because I don't know how to make the math symbols, but I think it is important because it shows the difference between the Fourier series of amplitudes of position and momentum not to commute by a value of h/2pi. (h-bar) of intensity.-- Voyajer 02:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I've noticed that this article's author have used Schrödinger equation to derive Heisenberg's. But as long as heisenberg's picture of quantum mechanics is complete by it's own, this is not really necessary...
I agree, deriving the Heisenberg picture from the Schrodinger picture doesn't make any more sense than deriving the Schrodinger picture from the Heisenberg picture. The article assumes there's something fundimental about attaching time dependence to psi, rather than the operator, and their isn't. Maybe somebody can replace this with something better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.179.162 ( talk) 22:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The derivation, is somewhat circular. Also, interestingly, there is no mention of where the (del A / del t)classical comes from, and, as it appears in the derivation, I think its wrong! Not to say its wrong but it comes up differently I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.41.41 ( talk) 13:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this correct? « noting that is the time derivative of A(t), the transformed operator, not the one we started with. » I think is not the same as 189.179.243.82 ( talk) 06:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
You are right, I fixed the mistake. Tank00 ( talk) 09:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
"Lorentz invariance is manifest in the Heisenberg picture."
Really? Like the Schrödinger equation, the Heisenberg equation has first order derivatives in t and second order derivatives in space (), which doesn't look too good. I think this could use some backing up. 195.37.186.62 ( talk) 03:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The content is very poor and too informal. Can someone take the time to give a hand? 88.243.167.81 ( talk) 17:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The article lacks results from recent researches, which could be useful for the readers. It's too retrospective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterwizardm ( talk • contribs) 11:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm discussing this mathematical box:
"In the Heisenberg picture of quantum mechanics the state vectors |ψ〉 do not change with time, while observables A satisfy
where H is the Hamiltonian and [•,•] denotes the commutator of two operators (in this case H and A). Taking expectation values automatically yields the Ehrenfest theorem, featured in the correspondence principle."
After a google search, I've decided that the H and S subscripts probably stand for "Heisenberg" and "Schrödinger", and that this equation is relating definitions of variables between the two pictures, but that is not at all clear from the article, and I don't want to add this in, as I have no experience with these concepts and I'm just guessing based on a google search and common sense. If someone can confirm that I've guessed correctly, I would strongly suggest that this be clarified in the text. Equations are often more informative than text, but not defining all of the variables is the easiest way to make equations absolutely useless to the reader. 98.17.108.86 ( talk) 06:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I've added the technical tag, as this article seems to be too technical. There's no introduction to the subject, and it launches into the mathematical formulism without too much background. I'm tempted to add a "clean up" tag as well, as the article seems somewhat confusing and hard to follow. Thoughts? Privong 17:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the article is too advanced for the casual reader. But this is organized in as orderly a way as mathematics will allow. I will add an introduction and a brief historical section and remove the tag. Beyond the history of Matrix mechanics nothing can be said about it without "advanced" mathematics. Such is the nature of quantum physics. -- Hfarmer 18:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
To the original Author of the page I feel it would be best to give a more basic but mathematical presentation of the matterial. By more basic what I mean is a presentation of how to solve for the state vector given the Hamiltonian operator of the interaction. I will work on this and add such a section latter. -- Hfarmer 18:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I am moving this material over to Matrix mechanics. There is no need for two articles and the topic is more commonly known by that name. DV8 2XL 20:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Heisenberg's quote "famous 'commutation relation' for the quantization condition that is at the basis of quantum mechanics" as shown on the web page:
I can't add it because I don't know how to make the math symbols, but I think it is important because it shows the difference between the Fourier series of amplitudes of position and momentum not to commute by a value of h/2pi. (h-bar) of intensity.-- Voyajer 02:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I've noticed that this article's author have used Schrödinger equation to derive Heisenberg's. But as long as heisenberg's picture of quantum mechanics is complete by it's own, this is not really necessary...
I agree, deriving the Heisenberg picture from the Schrodinger picture doesn't make any more sense than deriving the Schrodinger picture from the Heisenberg picture. The article assumes there's something fundimental about attaching time dependence to psi, rather than the operator, and their isn't. Maybe somebody can replace this with something better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.179.162 ( talk) 22:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The derivation, is somewhat circular. Also, interestingly, there is no mention of where the (del A / del t)classical comes from, and, as it appears in the derivation, I think its wrong! Not to say its wrong but it comes up differently I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.41.41 ( talk) 13:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this correct? « noting that is the time derivative of A(t), the transformed operator, not the one we started with. » I think is not the same as 189.179.243.82 ( talk) 06:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
You are right, I fixed the mistake. Tank00 ( talk) 09:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
"Lorentz invariance is manifest in the Heisenberg picture."
Really? Like the Schrödinger equation, the Heisenberg equation has first order derivatives in t and second order derivatives in space (), which doesn't look too good. I think this could use some backing up. 195.37.186.62 ( talk) 03:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The content is very poor and too informal. Can someone take the time to give a hand? 88.243.167.81 ( talk) 17:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The article lacks results from recent researches, which could be useful for the readers. It's too retrospective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterwizardm ( talk • contribs) 11:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm discussing this mathematical box:
"In the Heisenberg picture of quantum mechanics the state vectors |ψ〉 do not change with time, while observables A satisfy
where H is the Hamiltonian and [•,•] denotes the commutator of two operators (in this case H and A). Taking expectation values automatically yields the Ehrenfest theorem, featured in the correspondence principle."
After a google search, I've decided that the H and S subscripts probably stand for "Heisenberg" and "Schrödinger", and that this equation is relating definitions of variables between the two pictures, but that is not at all clear from the article, and I don't want to add this in, as I have no experience with these concepts and I'm just guessing based on a google search and common sense. If someone can confirm that I've guessed correctly, I would strongly suggest that this be clarified in the text. Equations are often more informative than text, but not defining all of the variables is the easiest way to make equations absolutely useless to the reader. 98.17.108.86 ( talk) 06:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)