This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The above section " Better history in Introduction to q.m." has some preliminary information.
First of all, a point I just made on another talk page is - following the history of QM is how one is introduced to QM, at least in that article. It is not about redundancy, the history has a purpose. It is not simply extra content weighing down the article, Deleting the history in Intro to QM may be detrimental to that article. If you want to do some summarizing then that might best be suited for this article. If you want to do some copy editing in the Intro to QM that is fine. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 15:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
The current section on spin describes the stern-gerlach experiment from the modern perspective rather than from the historical one appropriate for this article. Stern-Gerlach believed they proved the orbital angular momentum of the Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. Spin was unknown to them. Johnjbarton ( talk) 21:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I will be editing a sentence that is referenced:
In 1887, Heinrich Hertz observed that when light with sufficient frequency hits a metallic surface, the surface emits electrons.
The reference Taylor, J. R.; Zafiratos, C. D.; Dubson, M. A. (2004). Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers, does indeed say something like this but the context was not history but rather an explanation of the photoelectric effect.
Since the electron was not discovered until 1897, what Hertz observed would be called "cathode rays". Johnjbarton ( talk) 00:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to get into a whole AI-discussion, but is the external link to the Bard chatbot a reliable source? The first line of the linked page is "WARNING: CHATBOTS CANNOT YET BE TRUSTED"
It seems to me that this linked content is not "history of quantum mechanics" but "cute exercise in AI chat". It's equivalent to a self-published blog page one aspect of the history of QM. Would we link such a blog page?
@ Guy vandegrift @ ReyHahn Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The above section " Better history in Introduction to q.m." has some preliminary information.
First of all, a point I just made on another talk page is - following the history of QM is how one is introduced to QM, at least in that article. It is not about redundancy, the history has a purpose. It is not simply extra content weighing down the article, Deleting the history in Intro to QM may be detrimental to that article. If you want to do some summarizing then that might best be suited for this article. If you want to do some copy editing in the Intro to QM that is fine. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 15:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
The current section on spin describes the stern-gerlach experiment from the modern perspective rather than from the historical one appropriate for this article. Stern-Gerlach believed they proved the orbital angular momentum of the Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. Spin was unknown to them. Johnjbarton ( talk) 21:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I will be editing a sentence that is referenced:
In 1887, Heinrich Hertz observed that when light with sufficient frequency hits a metallic surface, the surface emits electrons.
The reference Taylor, J. R.; Zafiratos, C. D.; Dubson, M. A. (2004). Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers, does indeed say something like this but the context was not history but rather an explanation of the photoelectric effect.
Since the electron was not discovered until 1897, what Hertz observed would be called "cathode rays". Johnjbarton ( talk) 00:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to get into a whole AI-discussion, but is the external link to the Bard chatbot a reliable source? The first line of the linked page is "WARNING: CHATBOTS CANNOT YET BE TRUSTED"
It seems to me that this linked content is not "history of quantum mechanics" but "cute exercise in AI chat". It's equivalent to a self-published blog page one aspect of the history of QM. Would we link such a blog page?
@ Guy vandegrift @ ReyHahn Johnjbarton ( talk) 18:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)