Talk:Condensed matter physics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCondensed matter physics has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 17, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Solid State Physics vs. Condensed matter physics[edit]

Alison Chaiken 08:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC): I don't find "solid state physics" any more or less useful than "condensed matter physics" but I believe that the battle between them is over and SSP has lost. I don't know about the rest of you, but I call my work "condensed matter physics" even though 90% of it can be found in Ashcroft and Mermin. The SSP and CMP categories and articles are essentially duplications and are inevitably sources of confusion. I almost don't care which article or category we keep as long as there is only one. However, I do think that "solid state physics" is beginning to fall into disuse.[reply]

  • Since both of these articles are basically just signposts to other articles, I see no reason not to merge them. (But see my opposite view on the proposed Category merger). If actual text were to be written specific to the solid-state, then the articles could always be split apart again. -- The Photon 01:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One view against the merge[edit]

Solid State Physics is also useful to Electrical Engineers as a basis for integrated circuits. The body of work developed in the last 50 years is still of interest to EE's. But a student enrolling in Condensed Matter Physics might then be treated to BEC's etc to the neglect of the important material from the last half-century. It is useful to retain the distinction in the articles as well. --Ancheta Wis 13:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I don't want the content of the solid state physics article to be removed; I just want it to be incorporated into the condensed-matter article. "Solid state physics" is a term that is going out of usage, at least in the United States. What I would propose is that the solid-state article be a simple redirect to the condensed-matter article. No one denies that the content of both articles is useful; there's just no need for both. -- Alison Chaiken 04:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of presenting a view from outside the U.S., this is the first I've heard of SSP falling out of use as a term. I did graduate four years agao and maybe changes are underway in the university course titles, but working in the electronics industry SSP is still the term used here in the UK 10:17, 11 January 2006 (Zulu time, and indeed for all practical purposes here probably GMT and UTC as well)

I would prefer the articles not to be merged. The term Solid State Physics does not seem to be going out of use, here in the UK at least. I am a university student, and the term SSP is used pretty much all the time, whereas 'condensed matter physics' has never been mentioned. This could cause a lot of confusion. Just have a link to CMP on the solid state page, keep them seperate to make it easier on us students.

Something to note, is that the University courses (Engineering courses in the US, the poster above said general physics classes in the UK) might still use the term 'Solid State Physics' to describe the domain, but no journals, conferences or proceedings use that term. Everyone in the paper publishing area uses Condensed Matter Physics as the descriptive term.

For the merge, sort of...[edit]

As far as I'm concerned "condensed matter" is just an outdated term for "Solid State Physics". However, I feel that to be fair to electrical engineers and the like it should all be grouped into "Materials Science/Materials Engineering".

The situation is in fact the opposite. "Condensed Matter Physics" is nowadays applied to what was historically named "Solid State Physics." The reason is simple: physicists started studying "solids" with their new theory of quantum physics, to discover that the actual theory is applicable to a broader range of "densities" including liquids, and gases. On the application and engineering side "solid state" has continued becasue of the direction of flow of terminology and standardization procedures. On your last point, I consider it a bad idea to group "condensed matter physics" or "solid state physics" with "material science" as they refer to two different disciplines of science, with very different techniques, expertise and even goals. bhs 21:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merging[edit]

I have a suggestion to resolve most merging problems with better structuring articles within wikipedia. I call it "str-art". I think it could be applied to this merging at first, as a good example of how it could work, since there's a small structure around physics articles already, but nothing too strong.

I vote for merging, but in a different way, which would be lately completely different from the conventional way of merging done in wikipedia nowadays.

--caue 00:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your suggestions at str-art and get the gist that you think that duplicate articles arise because of poor overall organization, and that you think we should reorganize the physics articles instead of patching on a case-by-case basis. I'm not sure what kind of organization you envision though. Can you point to an example of some content that is organized in the way that you suggest? Do you want to discuss this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics? Alison Chaiken 05:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I have listed this on Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers#May_2006 to see if a conclusion can be reached. Rex the first talk | contribs 23:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I please request that the SSP article be not merged with the CMP. I am an engineering student in UK in my first year but I never heard of CMP till I visited the lovely wiki, SSP is on the other hand very well known to me. Please don't merge them unless wiki has run out of space for the extra article in which case SSP stays and out goes CMP. Robert 21:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a UK maths an physics student and I think that the two article overlap and having all the links in one place would help. I understand that people have heard of one or the other but both articles are a collection of links and mean very similar (if not the same thing) and in merging we could mention both CM and SSP. We would just be merging links so there would be one article unless anyone thinks that there is content in one that couldn't be in another.Rex the first talk | contribs 00:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the terms have slightly different meanings. Solid State Physics is exactly that, condensed matter includes solid state plus other bits. Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, Princeton all have "Condensed Matter" research groups in their physics departments, but not "solid state" groups. Having said that, stanford has a "solid state and photonics lab", presumably because they look at specifically solid state. Theoretical groups seem to be condensed matter groups, but maybe engineering departments, and some experimental groups are solid state. LeBofSportif 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Lots of editors here voting against merging have made great points for merging--namely that the two topics are highly related even if not the exact same thing. Explaining what they both are and their relationship is a great encyclopedia article that could educate readers like Robert. Having separate articles for highly related topics leads to increased maintance, potential conflicts, lower editor counts on each article, and a lower quality encyclopedia overall. Pdbailey (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both, but better organize[edit]

The deletion of either would be a mistake. Being a physicist I know the hierarchy of the physics web of subjects. Condensed Matter deals with all other material issues that Solid State doesn’t, such as plasmas and exotic material. Solid State is not a subset of Material Science, rater it would be more accurate to state that Material Science falls under the order of Condensed Matter as does Solid State. Both topics should be kept but the differences between Condensed Matter and Solid State should be outlined in their respective articles. One possible way to organize this would to draw up a web of the different physic super subjects and their minor topics in the wiki fashion. You might want to look at [Hyperphysics] for ideas (and yes Hyperphysics is a creditable website).--Michael.j.sykora 17:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-physicist, I was hoping for more perspective on that hierarchy of subjects. I.e., I wanted to get some sense of what CM physics doesn't include. Of course a grand list would be unwieldy and off-topic, but some examples to illuminate the boundary a bit would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbump (talk • contribs) 19:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topics in condensed matter physics as subheadings[edit]

I think the highest level of points in the "Topics in condensed matter physics" should be made into subheadings. Phases, Crystalline Solids, Non-crystalline solids, Soft matter, Nanotechnology is the things I am talking about. This will make it easier to look at and easier to navigate. Also then, a small blurb about the section can be included so that people can figure out what the basics of each field are without navigating away. What does everyone think about this? If no one opposes I will try to change these things in a couple of days --DFRussia 08:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking of introduction, Sep 20, 2009[edit]

The following are the main changes:

  1. Reordered the three examples of "exotic" condensed phases: the BEC in atomic systems is certainly interesting, but it seems more sensible to me to put the two examples that are mainstream CM physics first, before the new developments.
  2. The final sentence of the first paragraph seems entirely out of place, and also wrong ("large and strong"?), and has been removed.
  3. Added a sentence at the start of the second paragraph saying how we study these condensed phases.
  4. We need a citation for the statistic about one third of physicists doing CM.
  5. Removed "engineering" from the list of fields with significant overlap. All of physics has significant overlap with engineering, and it's only very specific areas of engineering (such as nanotechnology and materials science) that CM really overlaps with. (Plus this makes the list three items long.) Added references to biophysics and atomic physics.
  6. Added a remark about theoretical CM having connections with other areas of theoretical physics, which I think is an important point, given the number of concepts that are shared.
  7. Collected all the material about the name change together in the third paragraph.
  8. We need a citation for the claim about why the field was renamed. I have changed the name of the Cambridge CMT group to its current name. Does anyone know what it was actually called by Anderson and Heine?
  9. Reworded the final couple of sentences. In particular, referring to the two isotopes of helium and pairing in He-3 seems far too much detail for this overview article. I have also removed the term "quantum fluid", since a Fermi liquid is basically a (renormalized) classical phase.

Stevvers (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic Forces[edit]

A sentence in the lead section says "The most familiar condensed phases are solids and liquids, which arise from electromagnetic binding forces," but there is no follow-up to this anywhere in the article. What is the nature of these EM forces? The Electromagnetism article doesn't mention liquids or solids, so that link is not much help. We need to expand on this sentence.TSchwenn (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I eventually plan to add a section on band theory, which should hopefully address that. Also, thanks for your comments and work on the lead, let me know if you find other issues. Best, SPat talk 20:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Band theory is relevant to the article as a whole, as it explains the EM properties of solids, but can it account for the EM forces that bind a solid together? And what about liquids? The article should answer the question: "How do EM forces keep solids and liquids condensed?" --TSchwenn (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Condensed matter physics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk · contribs) 04:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review[edit]

Hi, I'm starting to look the article over. This is a pretty huge subject that you're trying to cover in not so many words here! You've made a heroic effort to be comprehensive even if it's meant that you haven't been able to spare more than a few words for any one topic. I'll try to take that goal of yours into account in my review. The alternative, of course, is to focus on the most important topics at the expense of neglecting some. Both approaches have good and bad points to them. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First read comments[edit]

Quickfail Criteria
Description Rating
The article completely lacks reliable sources. OK
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way. OK
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid OK
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. OK
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. OK
The article contains significant close paraphrasing or copyright violations. OK

I note a certain choppiness in tone that comes from attempting to cover a huge topic in the space of an encyclopedia article that can be read in, say, fifteen minutes or so. I suspect that many of my criticisms will center around your attempting to compress too much information into too few words. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed comments[edit]

General comments: Trying to cover, even in passing, all the important topics in such a vast field as condensed matter physics is impossible within a 34,000 character essay, so your choice of what to cover and what not to cover has necessarily been somewhat idiosyncratic. However, even after making allowances for the impossibility of covering everything in even a superficial fashion, I have issues on the adequacy of your coverage. As I interpret the article, the organizational principle underlying the different sections is as follows:

  1. Introduction – A high level description of the field that should be understandable by any literate reader.
  2. History – A quick, broad but necessarily shallow survey of the field presented in more or less chronological fashion, identifying major contributions to the subject. Since the beginning of this year, this and the following two sections have seen considerable growth. The principal editor of this History section appears to have intended it for the intelligent general reader, and has largely succeeded.
  3. Theoretical – Making no pretense at being comprehensive in scope, this appears to be an idiosyncratic selection of important topics in the theoretical underpinnings of the subject. The demands made on the reader appear to be somewhat greater than that of the History section.
  4. Experimental – Making no pretense at being comprehensive in scope, this is appears to be an idiosyncratic selection of major experimental achievements. The demands made on the reader appear to be somewhat greater than that of the History section.
  5. Applications – A quick, general survey showing the scope of condensed matter physics.

Without covering any subject in depth, your intent for this article appears mostly to be to provide a doorway to the subject by providing a directed guide to other articles on Wikipedia that cover selected topics in greater detail. It is more than a bare catalog of links, but less than a fully comprehensive review.

My biggest problem is the History section. As a broad survey, it misses a lot.

I am OK with the Theoretical and Experimental sections being somewhat pick-and-choose in their coverage. But the History section misses too much.

I don't blame you for missing a lot. However, in the following, I point out some topics whose omission seem inexcusable. It is possible that you will judge that some of the missing topics are too technical for the History section. If that is truly so, then they have to be covered in one of the later sections. Yes, several of the subjects that I note as missing in History are covered in later sections. Just see if there is a way to mention these topics in History (in context, of course) before covering them in greater detail later.

The Introduction needs to be written, and has been written, so that all literate readers are able to read and understand it. The History section has been written, and should continue to be be written so that most readers can get through it with a bit of work. These two sections are the most important, and need to fulfill their missions to the fullest extent possible. In the following, I give a number of recommendations for expanding the History section. You should be careful not to increase the technical burden on the reader in making your additions. Push any hard stuff into the Theoretical and Experimental sections.

Given that many readers will give up when they reach the Theoretical and Experimental sections, you should consider moving and re-writing the Applications section so that it stands as the third easy-to-read section after History.

Thank you very much for spending time reviewing this article. You have obviously put in considerable effort identifying problems and suggesting improvements. I'll try to go over all the points over the next few days, and respond accordingly. Thanks once again, SPat talk 04:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Figures[edit]

I find disturbing the fact that many of the chosen figures appear to serve purely a decorative purpose, without being integrated into the text or having sufficient explanation to give the reader understanding.

  • The opening figure illustrating quantum phase transitions is about as representative of the field as you can get, but you make no reference to the figure anywhere in the text, nor is there any caption.
Comment: So this is hard one, I don't really have a good idea for what should go along with the intro text. The entire box is from the Template:Condensed matter physics and has been there since before I started working on it. I've only left it there for lack of a better idea. As for the image, I just changed the one in the template. SPat talk
  • Serious error: The illustrated transistor is a point contact transistor, not a field-effect transistor.
 Done (oops!) SPat talk
  • I am not sure that the diffraction pattern of a protein crystal, can currently be considered as illustrative of a branch of condensed matter physics. It is certainly a wonderful application resulting from fundamental research in the field, and somewhere you should indicate that.
Comment: Um... the main reason I used the protein picture is because it is one of the few good XRD images we have on commons. It's just to illustrate an actual X-ray diffraction scan. SPat talk
  • Bose-Einstein condensate. This is a very pretty picture, but couldn't you explain which scans represent the "before" and "after" states?
plus Added SPat talk
  • Have the nano-gears actually been realized in practice? Or is this all just computer graphics?
plus Added SPat talk

Introduction[edit]

  • "Condensed matter physicists seek to understand the behavior of these phases by using well-established physical laws, in particular, these include the laws of quantum mechanics, electromagnetism and statistical mechanics."
by using => in terms of
Run-on sentence. Split into two sentences.
 Done Better? SPat talk

History[edit]

  • Section comment 1: This section reads as a chronological recitation of events without a theme. To tie things together, you need a theme, or themes. I suggest the following:
  1. The central division between the classical and modern period in condensed matter physics came from the advent of quantum mechanics.
  2. New techniques of measurement (such as AFM, angle-resolved photoemission, electron scattering, Auger spectroscopy, neutron reflectometry, etc.), and advancing degrees of control in experimental manipulations and over compositions of materials (such as ultra-high vacuum technology, zone refining and molecular beam epitaxy, optical lattices) have also played vital roles in the development of this field.
I see your point - I'm setting up a rough outline along which it should be easier to build content. Will do over next couple of days. SPat talk 06:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Section comment 2: It may be OK for this History section to be shallow. There is simply too much to cover. But there is no excuse for it not to at least attempt to be BROAD, given that it is a source of links to other Wikipedia articles giving detailed coverage. There are currently too many omissions.
  • In other words, History should be where you present all of the important topics and themes in historical context, and the Theoretical and Experimental sections should be where you expand upon selected areas.
  • "and hence concluded that the atoms in Dalton's atomic theory were not indivisible as Dalton claimed, but had inner structure."
I believe that this statement rather exaggerates the sophistication of Davy's views on atomic theory. Davy considered Dalton's theory to be "rather more ingenious than important" and stated, "there is no reason to suppose that any real indestructible principle has yet been discovered." Even when presenting Dalton with the Royal Medal medal in 1826, Davy said that Dalton's theory only became useful when the atomic conjecture was ignored. I don't believe that Davy had a clear picture of atoms at all.
 Altered to make it a neutral statement. SPat talk
  • Brillion's classification of crystal symmetries deserves mention.
 Partly done I included a line about crystal classification, but I didn't find any sources crediting it to Brillouin. SPat talk
  • Sorry, sloppy memory and spelling. (Brillouin zones, wrong century.) Meant Bravais, 1845. By the way, link to Yeh, Nai-Chang (2008). "A Perspective of Frontiers in Modern Condensed Matter Physics" is bad. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1823, Micheal Faraday..."
Micheal => Michael
 Done SPat talk
plus Added but not sure if it is important enough SPat talk
  • Hall effect deserves mention
plus Added courtesy User:SrijitaK, but needs some cleanup SPat talk
  • Although you mention Drude, here and in expanded form later, you don't mention that classical theory failed to explain the resistance versus temperature relation. Lorentz also worked on this subject.
 Done SPat talk
  • You mention Onnes' achievements in cryogenics and the discovery of superconductivity, but not how this was an observation completely outside classical physics to explain.
 Done SPat talk
  • Likewise you fail to mention the theoretical failures of classical theory (Dulong–Petit law) to provide the correct expression for heat capacity in many circumstances.
  • You neglected Einstein's contributions to the problem of heat capacity. Along the way, maybe you could include mention the contributions of Debye and of Born?
  • What about von Laue and the Braggs?
  • You mention Bloch's early work, and Sommerfeld's later work on metallic conduction (neglecting Pauli for some reason), but barely give any understanding of what they did: develop a quantum-mechanical free-electron theory of metals using Fermi-Dirac statistics that explained many previously inexplicable facts. Yes, I do see that you cover this stuff in Theoretical, but that's no excuse for History not to provide any context at all.
 Done Regarding Pauli, I feel a one-word mention is enough? SPat talk
  • In the introduction you mention ferromagnetism and anti-ferromagnetism, but otherwise drop the subject completely. In this history section you make no mention of Weiss, domain theory, nor of Heisenberg's role in explaining the enormous discrepancy between the classical estimates versus measured values of the Weiss effective magnetic field. Likewise Bloch, Neel, etc. This is an enormously important field because of its connection with magnetic storage.
 Done Whew, took quite an effort to get sources there. SPat talk
 See above
  • I notice that electronic band structure is your biggest section in Theoretical. That's good, but just using the term "Band structure calculations" in History without even a brief phrase of explanation is not.
  • Uh... looking through the whole article... what happened to BCS theory???
plus Added SPat talk
  • Neutron scattering and diffraction?
  • "A variety of topics in Physics such as crystallography, metallurgy, elasticity, magnetism, etc., were treated as distinct areas, until the 1940s ... The Bell Labs (then known as the Bell Telephone Laboratories) was one of the first institutes to conduct a research program in condensed matter physics."
The entire paragraph above on nomenclature seems out of place and seems more to fit as the third paragraph of the Introduction than in the history section.
 Done That does seem better, that paragraph started out as a part of the intro actually... SPat talk
  • You skip over to high temperature superconductivity without mentioning, even briefly, many other topics of interest.
 Half done Added QHE, again courtesy User:SrijitaK. Not very sure of historical relevance of rest.
 Done Dunno how I missed that, it's a bit of a pet topic SPat talk
 Done SPat talk
 Half done Added MFT SPat talk
✗ Not done Added by User:SrijitaK, but not sure of historical significance. SPat talk

Theoretical[edit]

  • Section comment: As I mentioned before, in this section and in the Experimental section you are obviously making no pretense at trying to be comprehensive, and I'm OK with that. You obviously merely want to highlight topics that seem of special interest and to provide links.

Experimental[edit]

  • Section comment: Ditto comment, in this section and in the Theoretical section you are obviously making no pretense at trying to be comprehensive, and I'm OK with that. You obviously merely want to highlight topics that seem of special interest and to provide links

Applications[edit]

Try moving this section up. The material in this section is all pretty easy reading. You need to let readers get to this interesting material before their eyes glaze over when they hit Theory and Experiment.

I agree about this being a more eye-catchy section, but I think it does need to be at the end to maintain a logical flow. SPat talk

What I need to see for GA[edit]

I need to see the History section providing a broad and accessible introduction to the major concepts of condensed matter physics, presenting the concepts in both historical and scientific context and tied together with a solid theme. Difficult concepts may be pushed out to the other sections, but try to maintain as much in History as possible. Given the amount that has been overlooked in History (even though I do see that in a number of cases the subjects are covered later), I anticipate at least a doubling or tripling in size of the History section would be necessary. Condensed matter physics currently stands at 34,000 characters, 4,000 of which is History. It should not be at all hard to expand just the History so that the article stands at 38,000–42,000 characters. - Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions are looking pretty good so far! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comment regarding history section: I've tried to include as many of your suggestions as I could. For most of those that I haven't, I feel they would be hard to fit into context within the "overall" history of the subject. If and when someone writes a dedicated article for History of condensed matter physics, that would be the place for comprehensive coverage. Do you think that's ok? I'd be happy to discuss further, SPat talk 05:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Condensed matter physics is such a vast field that it couldn't be covered adequately in an article four times as large. You've done a great job providing a starting point for people to follow up on the subject. Your interests and biases happen to be somewhat different than mine, but that's OK. Over the years, I expect that you and other editors will continue to improve this article, taking it far beyond its current state. Meanwhile, GA for you and your fellow editors! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

expert attention needed to Rydberg matter[edit]

(the following was moved from GA review talk page to here by Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

As discussed on its talk page, the Rydberg matter article has significant problems and seems to be promoting fringe science. However, condensed matter isn't my field. It would be great if a wikipedian with knowledge of condensed matter physics could step in and try to straighten things out there. My impression is that Rydberg matter should simply be deleted.--207.233.87.87 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks, Stigmatella aurantiaca, for moving this.--75.83.76.23 (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In preparation for a possible future FAC...[edit]

I'm thinking of taking the next big step for this article over the coming few weeks (months?). One of the points mentioned by the GA reviewer was the lack of comprehensiveness in the "Theory" and "Experiment" sections. To begin to address this, it'd be great if people could just enumerate a list of things that this article ought to have but currently does not - I'll begin:

Of course, if you have any other suggestions, feel free to chime in! Thanks for your time SPat talk 05:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Condensed matter physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Circular definition[edit]

Condensed matter physics is defined in terms of condensed. I created a link to Condensation, but that does not help much. The link to Phase (matter) does not help much either. The first sentence of the article does not tell a reader of ordinary intelligence what is meant by Condensed matter.

I think the defining property of condensed matter is a strong attraction among particles. I propose changing the first sentence to agree with the American Heritage Dictionary, "atoms or particles adhere to each other." Comfr (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Condensed matter physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Condensed matter physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal -- switch to "state of matter" rather than "phase"[edit]

This article is framed as talking about "phases" of matter, which I believe is inaccurate, or rather, is not sufficiently accurate.

I propose reframing the article in terms of "states", which would make things a lot clearer throughout. Specifically, things like "liquid" and "solid" are terms that refer to states of matter; phases of matter will have a state, but in addition possess properties specific to the matter under consideration. For example, liquid water and liquid oil share a state, but they are different phases.

I admit that the distinction between "phase" and "state" is a new one for me; I had not been aware of a difference. Colloquially it seems that they are used interchangeably, and terms like "phase boundary" exist and are commonly used, even though that actually represents a boundary between states, because what is usually produced is an immiscible mixture of some sort. If there are condensed-matter or solid-state physicists out there I'd appreciate the feedback.

This would also include organizing the list of states of matter table to include "condensed" vs. "dissociated" states of matter, with condensed pointing here and dissociated blank for the moment (aerodynamics is doesn't seem right). Anyway, the taxonomies here can be argued endlessly, but I think moving to states is a natural win.

I'll probably pull the trigger on this in a couple of days if there is no significant negative feedback; we can always revert if the change is seen as for the worse.

Lauciusa (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Condensed matter physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prosaic films[edit]

Suggestion to delete paragraphs RDR (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last two paragraphs of the Modern Many-Body Physics section need editing. The paragraph mentioning

"prosaic films" [clarification needed] of various gases (?!?) and spontelectrics

is dubious and it certainly does not refer to the same level of well established important results as the rest of the page.

Although band topology is undoubtedly an important topic today, the last paragraph presents this subject in an inadequate fashion.

Also the mention of Néel's antiferromagnetism (an important result) just before magnetic storage, as an application, is weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto DR (talk • contribs) 18:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partially done. What is weird about the Néel discovery?--ReyHahn (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solid state physics[edit]

There exist both this page on condensed matter physics (CMP) and one on solid state physics (SSP). The term CMP was proposed by PW Anderson, to include also fluids (and superfluids). So the two terms are not strictly coincident. But the present developing Wikipedia pages are mostly coincident.

A concerted effort would be most welcome. For instance the SSP page could say that the term has been the name of a prominent field of physics until the '80s, when the more general term of CMP took over. A shrinked version of SSP could remain, with the present content restricted to a minimum and a clear redirection, for more details to this CMP page.

I am not a Wikipedia Editor. This purpose, if agreed upon, could be explicitly written out in a temporary top warning box in both pages. I added a similar note in the SSP talk. RDR (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the issue. Solid state physics article clearly discusses the history and indicates in the lead that it is the largest branch of condensed matter physics.. SSP discusses just electronic and crystalline properties while condensed matter physics discusses much more than that. The only overlap is that both articles discuss the origin of the terminology.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Condensed_matter_physics&oldid=1193681281"