![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Wave–particle duality received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Most of it is a repeat, plus it overstates the role of Scroedinger's equation -- there is more to QM. Ldm1954 ( talk) 08:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I am repeating User:XOR'easter suggestion with a more specific suggestion that we replace it by a redirect to Double-slit experiment. That is a well-written older article with much, much more detail and many more citations and images. There is nothing in this current version that is not already better in that article. Votes please:
*Option 1: Redirect
*Option 2: Keep Ldm1954 ( talk) 20:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I want to explain my revert for a long section I believe was added in good faith.
I reverted a new section called "Particle waves". The name comes from a Feynman lecture:
This term is not common. The added text says:
but Feynman does not say this nor is the a reference for this claim.
Wave-particle duality is sometimes considered a "property" but this is not the historic nor mainstream point of view. Rather duality is an observed phenomenon. In my opinion non-mainstream terms like "particle wave" and "wavicle" perpetuate this confusing concept. Nothing is both a particle and a wave: these are different classical macroscopic concepts jammed together.
The rest of the text consisted of a paragraph on Copenhagen and one on anti-Copenhagen. These are not about wave-particle duality. They introduce an off-topic controversy that does not pertain to the article. These subjects are well covered in other articles. Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Johnjbarton Thank you for the detailed explanation of why you removed the section on the explanation of the particle wave.
For the use of word “particle waveâ€, when I was weighing which phrase to use, I had a similar concern just like you have that “particle wave†may not be popularly enough. Interestingly, when I entered “ particle waveâ€, Wiki automatically redirected me to the “Wave-particle duality†article. That’s why I decided to go with the “particle waveâ€. I think “particle wave†is a nice representation of the quantum behavior of a particle (i.e., wave-particle duality). Of course, to make it more clear to most readers, other suggested terms are welcome.
Wave-particle duality of quantum particle/wave is a known quantum phenomenon. To enrich the article, the explanation for this quantum behavior is needed. Copenhagen interpretation is an important explanation to wave-particle duality. The discussion of the statistical interpretation of the wave-particle duality well fit into the content of this article. I tried to briefly summarize the mainstream explanation and the criticism to it.
One more thing, I found the peer review page of the wave-particle duality article pretty useful. The discussions there give me good inspirations on how to improve the article. Spinecho001 ( talk) 10:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Particle wave has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 23 § Particle wave until a consensus is reached.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
15:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Spinecho001 suggests that this article needs a QM explanation. I agree but believe our ideas of such a section may be far apart. I wrote my version here User:Johnjbarton/sandbox/duality. We can discuss User talk:Johnjbarton/sandbox/duality or here. In any case I will add refs before moving into article. Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Wave–particle duality received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Most of it is a repeat, plus it overstates the role of Scroedinger's equation -- there is more to QM. Ldm1954 ( talk) 08:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I am repeating User:XOR'easter suggestion with a more specific suggestion that we replace it by a redirect to Double-slit experiment. That is a well-written older article with much, much more detail and many more citations and images. There is nothing in this current version that is not already better in that article. Votes please:
*Option 1: Redirect
*Option 2: Keep Ldm1954 ( talk) 20:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I want to explain my revert for a long section I believe was added in good faith.
I reverted a new section called "Particle waves". The name comes from a Feynman lecture:
This term is not common. The added text says:
but Feynman does not say this nor is the a reference for this claim.
Wave-particle duality is sometimes considered a "property" but this is not the historic nor mainstream point of view. Rather duality is an observed phenomenon. In my opinion non-mainstream terms like "particle wave" and "wavicle" perpetuate this confusing concept. Nothing is both a particle and a wave: these are different classical macroscopic concepts jammed together.
The rest of the text consisted of a paragraph on Copenhagen and one on anti-Copenhagen. These are not about wave-particle duality. They introduce an off-topic controversy that does not pertain to the article. These subjects are well covered in other articles. Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Johnjbarton Thank you for the detailed explanation of why you removed the section on the explanation of the particle wave.
For the use of word “particle waveâ€, when I was weighing which phrase to use, I had a similar concern just like you have that “particle wave†may not be popularly enough. Interestingly, when I entered “ particle waveâ€, Wiki automatically redirected me to the “Wave-particle duality†article. That’s why I decided to go with the “particle waveâ€. I think “particle wave†is a nice representation of the quantum behavior of a particle (i.e., wave-particle duality). Of course, to make it more clear to most readers, other suggested terms are welcome.
Wave-particle duality of quantum particle/wave is a known quantum phenomenon. To enrich the article, the explanation for this quantum behavior is needed. Copenhagen interpretation is an important explanation to wave-particle duality. The discussion of the statistical interpretation of the wave-particle duality well fit into the content of this article. I tried to briefly summarize the mainstream explanation and the criticism to it.
One more thing, I found the peer review page of the wave-particle duality article pretty useful. The discussions there give me good inspirations on how to improve the article. Spinecho001 ( talk) 10:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Particle wave has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 23 § Particle wave until a consensus is reached.
Johnjbarton (
talk)
15:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Spinecho001 suggests that this article needs a QM explanation. I agree but believe our ideas of such a section may be far apart. I wrote my version here User:Johnjbarton/sandbox/duality. We can discuss User talk:Johnjbarton/sandbox/duality or here. In any case I will add refs before moving into article. Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)