Talk:Interaction picture
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
‹See TfM›
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Don't merge
[edit]User:Jess Riedel has proposed a grand merge today. The Devil is in the details, however, and it is hard to do it right. A bit of reduplication can't hurt, cf. the table in this article, but the reader who wants to get a snap picture of this and not the other pictures should be able to come here, as opposed to a longer, turgid peroration on all three pictures, etc... This is best left for a QM text. In the real world, the three pictures have very different user communities and cultures, and trying to hit the hapless readers with a grand synthesis can only turn them off and send them elsewhere. Better than a merge, multiplexing and then reduplicating the information in a central spot as well may be preferable. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- A centralized discussion would be easier to follow than one conducted four places. User:Jess Riedel seems to have started one at Talk:Dynamical pictures (quantum mechanics). Laura Scudder | talk 20:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Inarguably so; this is how people are introduced to these pictures in all texts, and that centralized discussion deserves to be developed. My assumption is the reader here has already learned about changing pictures, but wants something more. My sense, however, is that, past such discussions, texts normally cop out, shrug all the good stuff off, and move on to better pastures, and students start scrounging footnotes in Landau and Lifschits, and wikipedia articles such as this one. It would be a pity to deprive them of it, in the interest of some central planning concept. I don't see the harm in reduplication: some of the better parts of WP run on it! The central discussion, linked as a "main article" link could also use the comparative table to help the students find their bearings there. But, at the end of the day, the student has to forget the "bad habits" and expectations of the other pictures when applying a specific one. Consider the mayhem they regularly unleash when they misapply this operator structure mapped to the phase space formulation of QM Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Same look and feel across the three related pages
[edit][Complaint about lack of picture by TheCampaignForRealPhysics removed by user. To which C.Fred had replied:]
- Because it is not truly a picture of the concept, it does not belong at the top of the article. However, it's been moved down and recaptioned—in keeping with the other two articles. —C.Fred (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Good edits by C.Fred on all three pages with the pictures and descriptions of the protagonists. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCampaignForRealPhysics (talk • contribs) 19:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Tables misleading / wrong
[edit]
ResolvedThe two tables in Interaction_picture#Definition and Interaction_picture#Summary_comparison_of_evolution_in_all_pictures are misleading here - the exponential formulas in the Schrödinger and Heisenberg picture are only corrent if the total Hamiltonian is time-independent, and that is precisely not the case that is interesting when using the interaction picture as it is mostly designed for time-dependent pertubation theory. Unless there are objections, I will change the exponentials to the respective differential equations (Schrödinger and Heisenberg equation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by EduardoW (talk • contribs) 09:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, objections. First do no damage. The extant simple tables are useful, if even pedagogically. Add new tables instead of replacing them. NOR! Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have the following draft, feel free to edit: User:eduardoW/Interaction_picture Also I think that in this article we should delete one of the tables, they are completely redundant. Is there a special reason for the fancily formatted table at the bottom?
- I suspect if you look at the history the inline table was inserted gratuitously later. The bottom table has been there for a while, and matches the one in the Heisenberg pic and the Schroedinger pic articles, of which this is the triplet sibling. Personally, having looked at your table, I suspect it is too busy, and much of the time-dependent material would belong in the text, off the table. Alternatively, your table could supplant the gray table in the article, leaving the "degenerate" green table at the bottom as a trail map. The point is to let the student in a hurry do the quickie retrieval of her/his bearings on a simple illiustration, without going into depth. Thie article and WP are not tutorials--there are books and the Wikiuniversity for that. They are supposed to be crib-sheets. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, this looks good. EduardoW (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I suspect if you look at the history the inline table was inserted gratuitously later. The bottom table has been there for a while, and matches the one in the Heisenberg pic and the Schroedinger pic articles, of which this is the triplet sibling. Personally, having looked at your table, I suspect it is too busy, and much of the time-dependent material would belong in the text, off the table. Alternatively, your table could supplant the gray table in the article, leaving the "degenerate" green table at the bottom as a trail map. The point is to let the student in a hurry do the quickie retrieval of her/his bearings on a simple illiustration, without going into depth. Thie article and WP are not tutorials--there are books and the Wikiuniversity for that. They are supposed to be crib-sheets. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have the following draft, feel free to edit: User:eduardoW/Interaction_picture Also I think that in this article we should delete one of the tables, they are completely redundant. Is there a special reason for the fancily formatted table at the bottom?
?
[edit]
is used without being defined. Is the same as throughout? 176.61.2.76 (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
