Talk:Particle in a box

Comments

User Papa November asked for so comments and feedback.

My primary observation is that this article focuses why to much on explaining how to solve the particle-in-a-box problem in quantum mechanics. Please bear in mind that wikipedia is not a textbooks or a how to guide. As it stands the article reads like a couple of pages from an undergrad physics textbook, not an encyclopedia article. To make the article more encyclopedic I suggest:

1. Less focus on derivation, just state the result with a proper reference to a derivation. Most importantly, less math more prose. You may want to take some space and just explain in plain English what the main ingredients of the solution are. Remember that many of the potential readers of this article don't 'speak' mathematics, so write in English. In any case the solution should probably precide the derivation.
2. The properties of the solution could use some more attention on the other hand. Discrete energy levels and nonzero energy groundstate, are typical for quantum systems. It might be worthwhile to elaborate on that a little. It is important to convey how this problem and its solution related to other problems and the real world.
3. There should be a small history section discussion the who's and when's. Who first proposed the problem, and why? Who first solved it? Did proposing/solving the problem lead to any particular new insights in the development of quantum mechanics?
4. You might want to discuss the role of this problem in the didactics of quantum mechanics. It is one of the first QM problems undergrads learn to solve. This article should 1) mention this. 2)explain why.
5. The article should discuss what kind of practical system can be approximated by this model. What are the applications of this model.

Finally, a word of general advice when writting physics articles. Try not to think too much like a physicist, but try to view the text from the perspective of a layman. (TimothyRias (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

I'd prefer more citation and referencing, particularly of the first two introduction paragraphs. I suspect that the reason this article currently reads, quoth Timothy Rias, "like a couple of pages from an undergrad physics textbook", is because much of it has been reproduced from just such a source. I googled a phrase from the intro ("also known as the infinite potential well or the infinite square well") and came up with a number of search results including a page that seemed to be an exam study guide.

My advice is: re-write in an encyclopaedic style and be bold enough to try using your own phrases (instead of just swapping around a word here and there). I appreciate a number of edits have recently gone into this piece but I am a great fan of developing Wikipedia content that has been independently well written as well as prolifically written. A lot of images are cleaned out of Wikipedia, with copy-right cited as reason, and I believe Wikipedians need to be as demanding of their text as they are of pictures in this respect. In short:

• Think about writing Wikipedia content that speaks with flair and originality as well as with an encyclopaedic voice.
• If you are afraid others will question content that you wrote yourself, just be sure to reference it well and cite all of the facts. If someone with more knowledge about the subject, or a sharp eye, reads the article they can easily spot and check or fix a fact that way.
• Think about including sections that might discuss a history of the theory behind the model, or how the model was developed. Has anyone famously discussed the model or based other work on the model? If they have, include this - it is informative and interesting and you can write great readable content based entirely on facts this way.
• Think about including a section that might demonstrate how the model has been applied: give physics a purpose.
• Has any particularly interesting, unusual or notable work in science ever made use of the model? If it has, think about creating either a sub-section or a link to a relevant existing article (or create a whole new article about it!).
• Above all, remember that quality demands bravery as well as accuracy.

I hope I haven't been too harsh a critic. 122.57.176.249 (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but I really must object strongly to your implications of plagiarism. You can look though the edit history and see that I have rewritten all the content in the lead section and the 1D box section from scratch, and not merely swapped odd words from textbooks. The topic is so widely taught, and so standardised in approach that it is an unsurprising coincidence that some phrases have come out similar to some of the hundreds of internet tutorials. As one of the administrators who actually performs the deletion of copyrighted content on Wikipedia, I can assure you that there is absolutely no copyright infringement in this article - just several hours of my original work! If you have specific issues with my writing style, then I'll be pleased to address them, but please don't accuse people of plagiarism without some very firm evidence.

In response to your other comments:

• Can you give some specific examples of unencyclopaedic style, or lack of flair?
• I have provided textbook references throughout the 1D box section to verify everything I have written. Lead sections are just a summary of the main article content, so they don't need to repeat the citations used later in the article. If there is anything you would like a citation for, please could you add a {{fact}} tag next to the questionable sentence in the article, and I will see to it?
• Yes, I agree that a history section would be helpful. As far as I'm aware, it goes back pretty much to the very dawn of quantum mechanics so I guess all the big names in the field have used it for some back-of-the-envelope calculations. I don't have any references that talk about the history of the model, however.
• I can add something about applications of the model, but I only really know about semiconductor devices in any detail. I'll add something about quantum well lasers, maybe.
• It is virtually the only system in quantum mechanics which can be solved by hand, with only a pocket calculator. As such, it is ubiquitous throughout nanoscale science and engineering. I should try to put its importance across more clearly.
• Can you give some specific examples of where cowardice or inaccuracy have affected the article quality?!

Papa November (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Degeneracy

The section on the three-dimensional case says when two or more of the lengths are the same (e.g. Lx = Ly), there are multiple wavefunctions corresponding to the same total energy. That's true in two dimensions too. The two-dimensional case is discussed first, and doesn't mention this, making it seem as though it first comes up in three dimensions.