Talk:Quantum mechanics: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Aleksander Stos
(category question)
imported>Paul Wormer
Line 15: Line 15:
==Math?==
==Math?==
There is a question how do we manage quantum mechanics articles, i.e. whether  we put it under Math Workgroup or not. [[User:Jitse Niesen]] has just removed the math category. Consider however this post by [[User:Greg Woodhouse]] on forum.[http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,620.msg5697.html#msg5697] I'm leaning to Greg's point of view. See also AMS classification on [[CZ:Mathematics Workgroup]], quantum theory is a notable node. Any thoughts? --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 09:25, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
There is a question how do we manage quantum mechanics articles, i.e. whether  we put it under Math Workgroup or not. [[User:Jitse Niesen]] has just removed the math category. Consider however this post by [[User:Greg Woodhouse]] on forum.[http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,620.msg5697.html#msg5697] I'm leaning to Greg's point of view. See also AMS classification on [[CZ:Mathematics Workgroup]], quantum theory is a notable node. Any thoughts? --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 09:25, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
:There are formulations of quantum mechanics that are most definitely on the border between physics and mathematics. The tradition starts with Weyl's book on Group Theory and Quantum Mechanics (1928), then von Neumann's famous book (1932) that contained lots of new math, and more recently  Reed and Simon (1972), and Thirring (1979). Beyond my horizon is string theory which is almost only mathematics, although as I understand it, string theory is more than quantum theory (I'm told  that it includes general relativity). I would say that quantum mechanics has enough mathematical content to put it in the math category as well.  Further, Jitse will  appreciate that people who apply quantum mechanics are heavy users of numerical mathematics, so also from that angle there is contact.
:Another thing: who is mainly responsible for this article? Is it a CZ author, or is it straight from WP? In other words, if I would change things, on whose toes would I step? --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 09:18, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 09:18, 13 September 2007


Article Checklist for "Quantum mechanics"
Workgroup category or categories Physics Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article? No
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by Bruce M.Tindall

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





I categorized this as status "Developing" because, although there have been a couple of major revisions or additions (the "Effects" and "History" sections), the vast majority of the text is still a near-verbatim copy of the Wikipedia article. Bruce M.Tindall 16:25, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Math?

There is a question how do we manage quantum mechanics articles, i.e. whether we put it under Math Workgroup or not. User:Jitse Niesen has just removed the math category. Consider however this post by User:Greg Woodhouse on forum.[1] I'm leaning to Greg's point of view. See also AMS classification on CZ:Mathematics Workgroup, quantum theory is a notable node. Any thoughts? --AlekStos 09:25, 16 April 2007 (CDT)

There are formulations of quantum mechanics that are most definitely on the border between physics and mathematics. The tradition starts with Weyl's book on Group Theory and Quantum Mechanics (1928), then von Neumann's famous book (1932) that contained lots of new math, and more recently Reed and Simon (1972), and Thirring (1979). Beyond my horizon is string theory which is almost only mathematics, although as I understand it, string theory is more than quantum theory (I'm told that it includes general relativity). I would say that quantum mechanics has enough mathematical content to put it in the math category as well. Further, Jitse will appreciate that people who apply quantum mechanics are heavy users of numerical mathematics, so also from that angle there is contact.
Another thing: who is mainly responsible for this article? Is it a CZ author, or is it straight from WP? In other words, if I would change things, on whose toes would I step? --Paul Wormer 09:18, 13 September 2007 (CDT)