Talk:Polaron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Theory Rewrite?[edit]

The theory section basically only talks about frolich polarons, perhaps I could split it into sections on large and small polarons? I can put in the Hamiltonians too, which may be useful. Bear with me, I know polarons, but I'm new to major edits on WikipediaRydbergite (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


Reference list[edit]

Reference 20 and 26 are the same. 88.73.238.48 (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Phonon ...- another appeal :$[edit]

the both articles are descriptive enough on their own

merge notice[edit]

Merge: all for it, obvious merge V8rik 17:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have merged the suggested two articles of polaron and polaron theory. I tried to wikify the exposition at places. I have created the article on Davydov soliton, which is a kind of polaron, that is why I think cross-linking of both articles will be of use. Danko Georgiev MD 14:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference list[edit]

I have just converted the reference list into neat bibliographic data, some of the old references were not quoted at all in the text. The missing titles, and last pages can be added if someone wants to improve the article. For inserting new citations please use the reference template within the article. Also some cleaning of the text from the repeated usage of "ref." could be done Danko Georgiev MD 12:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Things to clean up[edit]

CAVEAT : not an expert in this field, so making some suggestions - I may get around to making them changes at a much later date.

Fig 1 -

cites [3] as a reference, but that seems to be out-of-date. It seems that use for the original image was granted by the AIP, which would justify the reference. But the current image was supposedly created by user "S klimin" - however, it seems to be merely modified version of the AIP image. In which case, it can't be made available under GNU by user "S klimin", unless that user was the original author of the paper cited (which seems possible, 19 of 42 citations list "Devreese")- but I'm not sure how that interacts with the NOR policy.


"Herbert Fröhlich proposed a model Hamiltonian for this polaron"

Can we get that Hamiltonian here?


"A comparison of the DSG results [21] with the optical conductivity spectra given by approximation-free numerical [22] and approximate analytical approaches is given in ref. [23]."

DSG results? No definition, no link to other article.


In general, there's a lot of great information, but the article tends to be just a little gushing, and not particularly encyclopedic. While the information is presumably accurate, some statements feel a little strong for an encyclopedia, and may violate NPOV :


"Calculations of the optical conductivity for the Fröhlich polaron performed within the Diagrammatic Quantum Monte Carlo method [22], see Fig. 3, fully confirm the results of the path-integral variational approach [21] at \alpha \lesssim 3."

fully confirm ? I dunno that I buy that (based on the attached graph), though I would buy "strongly" confirm. I'd only think "fully" if the data error bars overlap the prediction


"The all-coupling magneto-absorption calculated in Ref. [21], leads to the best quantitative agreement between theory and experiment for AgBr and AgCl."

Best based on what criteria? Least squares fitting?


Thoughts from others? Beakdan 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess, the Devrese was editing this article, as his name appears many times in the ref list. So I believe the person who released the images had the right to do so, otherwise please ask him at the user talk page. I don't care about clarification of such issues. I personally release in Wikipedia only my own images, so I believe others do the same. I fully agree that the article needs more editing. One may read the original papers and then answer the posed by you questions, but you'd better do this by yourself. Best, Danko Georgiev MD 11:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)