 |
This article has been mentioned or used by a media organization. The reference is in:
|
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 120 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
Most accurate?
Not any more! See the article by Penrose that says that quantum field theory has been tested to one part in 1011 while an aspect of General Relativity has been tested to one part in 1014! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockMagnetist (talk • contribs) at 17:18, 15 January 2012
Statement about conjugate variables needs attention
In section "Mathematical formulation", we have: "Contrary to classical mechanics, one can never make simultaneous predictions of conjugate variables, such as position and momentum, with accuracy. For instance, electrons may be considered (to a certain probability) to be located somewhere within a given region of space, but with their exact positions unknown"
1. In classical mechanics we have conjugate variables such as the time course and frequency of a signal in which precision must be traded off between the two. So the statement here is not exactly "contrary to classical mechanics".
2. The second sentence purports to illustrate the first, so should presumably involve two variables, but then discusses only one: position. Gwideman (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Probabilistic nature attributed to measurement?
In section "Mathematical formulations", there is a sentence: "The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics thus stems from the act of measurement."
This seems to contradict previous paragraphs in which the need to use a probability-based description is attributed to conjugate variables.
Further suggesting there is a problem, on the Uncertainty principle page, we have: "Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused[4][5] with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. [...] it has since become clear that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems, and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects." Gwideman (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Feedback would help here. (It's not a desperate issue, but it will affect QM related articles so I thought to notify the main article and wikiproject). Thanks, M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 19:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
History
I am changing this statement around because of its inaccuracy:
"The first study of quantum mechanics goes back to the 17th and 18th centuries when scientists such as Robert Hooke, Christian Huygens and Leonhard Euler proposed a wave theory of light based on experimental observations."
This is not accurate Young et all were not studying quantum mechanics, neither was that their intention, but merely studying the properties of light. This would be like claiming ancient attempts to understand light were studies of electromagnetism, it confuses the issue. Just because Young et all studied light does not mean he knew, wanted, or was studying quantum systems. Second the source listed for this sentence does not even make that claim, and is not a work on the history of quantum mechanics, but an advanced science text book on optics. Belief action
This article has an assessment summary page.
