This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Quantum number article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
In the section "Spatial and angular momentum numbers" the article states "As per the following model, these nearly-compatible quantum numbers are [...]". What does nearly-compatible mean? I have not heard of compatibility of quantum numbers. If this is not a scientific term, I believe this should be clarified. If it is, including a citation or further explanation would be helpful. -- abhandari ( talk) 17:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The article says: In the case of electrons, the quantum numbers can be defined as "the sets of numerical values which give acceptable solutions to the Schrödinger wave equation for the hydrogen atom" Seems to me that this is true near some positive particle. Well, much of quantum numbers has to do with the quantum description of an atom, but all this is also more general. Quantum mechanics also describes, for example, the states of spin 3/2 negatively charged particles around a spin 2 positive particle. Seems to me that a good part of the article should describe the quantum mechanics of electrons around nuclei, that being a common situation, but not the only one. Gah4 ( talk) 14:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
This is one of the silliest statements I've read on Wikipedia, and I'm surprised it's been around for so long. Wow. What does this even mean? I'm deleting it. Just wow. Ponor ( talk) 17:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
It seems that the number of quantum numbers needed is related to the dimensionality of the system. It takes three quantum numbers for a hydrogen-like atom because we live in a 3D universe. Should this be mentioned here? Gah4 ( talk) 18:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The rules subsection nicely uses carbon for an example. This might be a good place to mention that the basis for the numbering isn't unique, and, for examples, Sp3 hybridization. This is sort-of hinted at when it mentions linear independence earlier, but should be mentioned more. Gah4 ( talk) 17:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I propose to merge Good quantum number into Quantum number. There is no good reason that these should be two separate pages. I also note that what this article, in places, calls a quantum number, is more accurately called a good quantum number. Quantum numbers are more general; when they represent a conserved quantity they are referred to as good. Please also note that, although the Good quantum number article is shorter and less pretty than this one, it is far more accurate. I get the impression it was written by a professional physicist, whereas this article appears to have been edited by passionate amateurs (absolutely no offence meant by this). 2A00:23C7:9386:BA00:2C32:B9A0:1C47:6E99 ( talk) 00:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I think this page just needs a professional editor. Merging it with another page wouldn't do any good, as the mistake is intrinsic. Anyways, imma just put this topic into WT:WC just in case :). Good job fellow editors! Ice bear johny ( talk) 15:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
This article says is the "spin quantum number". The article spin quantum number starts by saying is the spin quantum number. But later at one point it calls the spin quantum number. and are different things, so this is a bit confusing.
Is there a standard definition of "spin quantum number", or do experts freely call both of these things the "spin quantum number"? If there's a standard definition, let's only call one of and the spin quantum number, not both. If there's not a standard definition, we should warn the reader. John Baez ( talk) 19:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
This article mixes up energy levels with transition energies and implies that measurements arrive at integer values. EG "quantities can only be measured in discrete (often integer) values." Johnjbarton ( talk) 19:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussion about the relation between symmetry and some of the quantum numbers, like those related to angular momentum, should be added. I don't have a reference in mind, but most of the advanced QM textbooks probably discuss such things. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 07:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The current article starts with "Mathematical origin", implying that quantum numbers are a math thing rather than the other way around. The origin story for quantum numbers is vital to even understand why they are notable.
Central to the understanding of quantum numbers is Pauli's symmetry principle: without it we only need one quantum number ;-)
Hund's rules also deserve a section as they summarize the way that the electron quantum numbers (occupying most of the current article) impact chemistry. Johnjbarton ( talk) 16:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I think on of the issues here is that different sources from different fields use the term. Atomic physics uses "quantum number" in two ways: as a quantized degree of freedom ("orbital angular momentum quantum number") and as an identifier for an energy level ("l=1 for p orbitals"). Particle physics uses the first meaning mostly. Ref:
VS:
Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
In general a complete set of quantum numbers is denoted . The three examples given above corresponds to , , and each yielding a state function of the form . The completeness of a basis state as well as the normalization of the state vectors play a central role in quantum theory
Template:Flavour_quantum_numbers links this article with text "flavour quantum numbers". Sadly this page has almost nothing to say about that topic. Johnjbarton ( talk) 23:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Quantum number article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
In the section "Spatial and angular momentum numbers" the article states "As per the following model, these nearly-compatible quantum numbers are [...]". What does nearly-compatible mean? I have not heard of compatibility of quantum numbers. If this is not a scientific term, I believe this should be clarified. If it is, including a citation or further explanation would be helpful. -- abhandari ( talk) 17:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The article says: In the case of electrons, the quantum numbers can be defined as "the sets of numerical values which give acceptable solutions to the Schrödinger wave equation for the hydrogen atom" Seems to me that this is true near some positive particle. Well, much of quantum numbers has to do with the quantum description of an atom, but all this is also more general. Quantum mechanics also describes, for example, the states of spin 3/2 negatively charged particles around a spin 2 positive particle. Seems to me that a good part of the article should describe the quantum mechanics of electrons around nuclei, that being a common situation, but not the only one. Gah4 ( talk) 14:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
This is one of the silliest statements I've read on Wikipedia, and I'm surprised it's been around for so long. Wow. What does this even mean? I'm deleting it. Just wow. Ponor ( talk) 17:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
It seems that the number of quantum numbers needed is related to the dimensionality of the system. It takes three quantum numbers for a hydrogen-like atom because we live in a 3D universe. Should this be mentioned here? Gah4 ( talk) 18:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
The rules subsection nicely uses carbon for an example. This might be a good place to mention that the basis for the numbering isn't unique, and, for examples, Sp3 hybridization. This is sort-of hinted at when it mentions linear independence earlier, but should be mentioned more. Gah4 ( talk) 17:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I propose to merge Good quantum number into Quantum number. There is no good reason that these should be two separate pages. I also note that what this article, in places, calls a quantum number, is more accurately called a good quantum number. Quantum numbers are more general; when they represent a conserved quantity they are referred to as good. Please also note that, although the Good quantum number article is shorter and less pretty than this one, it is far more accurate. I get the impression it was written by a professional physicist, whereas this article appears to have been edited by passionate amateurs (absolutely no offence meant by this). 2A00:23C7:9386:BA00:2C32:B9A0:1C47:6E99 ( talk) 00:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I think this page just needs a professional editor. Merging it with another page wouldn't do any good, as the mistake is intrinsic. Anyways, imma just put this topic into WT:WC just in case :). Good job fellow editors! Ice bear johny ( talk) 15:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
This article says is the "spin quantum number". The article spin quantum number starts by saying is the spin quantum number. But later at one point it calls the spin quantum number. and are different things, so this is a bit confusing.
Is there a standard definition of "spin quantum number", or do experts freely call both of these things the "spin quantum number"? If there's a standard definition, let's only call one of and the spin quantum number, not both. If there's not a standard definition, we should warn the reader. John Baez ( talk) 19:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
This article mixes up energy levels with transition energies and implies that measurements arrive at integer values. EG "quantities can only be measured in discrete (often integer) values." Johnjbarton ( talk) 19:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussion about the relation between symmetry and some of the quantum numbers, like those related to angular momentum, should be added. I don't have a reference in mind, but most of the advanced QM textbooks probably discuss such things. Jähmefyysikko ( talk) 07:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The current article starts with "Mathematical origin", implying that quantum numbers are a math thing rather than the other way around. The origin story for quantum numbers is vital to even understand why they are notable.
Central to the understanding of quantum numbers is Pauli's symmetry principle: without it we only need one quantum number ;-)
Hund's rules also deserve a section as they summarize the way that the electron quantum numbers (occupying most of the current article) impact chemistry. Johnjbarton ( talk) 16:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I think on of the issues here is that different sources from different fields use the term. Atomic physics uses "quantum number" in two ways: as a quantized degree of freedom ("orbital angular momentum quantum number") and as an identifier for an energy level ("l=1 for p orbitals"). Particle physics uses the first meaning mostly. Ref:
VS:
Johnjbarton ( talk) 01:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
In general a complete set of quantum numbers is denoted . The three examples given above corresponds to , , and each yielding a state function of the form . The completeness of a basis state as well as the normalization of the state vectors play a central role in quantum theory
Template:Flavour_quantum_numbers links this article with text "flavour quantum numbers". Sadly this page has almost nothing to say about that topic. Johnjbarton ( talk) 23:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)