Talk:Quantum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 

Quantum Inc[edit]

The link here from Andrew Tridgell is in error; anyone know anything about a company called Quantum, to add here? Graue 21:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quantum Inc is a hard disk manufacturer.

www.quantum.com

Quanta Computers Inc Taiwan[edit]

How to create new redirection for Quanta Computers Inc (Taiwan)? Quanta is one of the largest manufacturer of laptop/notebooks in the world.


Random Text in the article[edit]

3rd paragraph, first sentence.

"An entirely new conceptual framework shows that priya is the biggest whore on the planet, and it was developed around this idea, during the first half of the twentieth century."

I am fairly certain this text should not be here. Sorry I don't know the user who posted this or if there is a better previous version. I don't know the Wikipedia UI at all, but I do want to fix vandalism. Thanks, -JRC 3-24-08



www.quanta.com.tw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.210.145.12 (talk) 06:08, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

"Quantum leap" misuse[edit]

The article as currently written states under the section Misuse that "A 'quantum leap' has been used colloquially since the 1950s to imply a large change, as opposed to the smallest possible change.", and I was surprised to see this complaint. When I hear "quantum leap" I tend to think of the dramatic change in theoretical physics when quantum mechanics was invented, which seems like a giant intellectual jump, rather than some small transition between atomic states, which is never referred to as a "leap". That said, I usually don't like hearing the term "quantum leap" in popular culture, because so few people appreciate what a huge leap it actually was to discover quantum theory. Indeed, Journals such as "Nature materials" use quantum leap to mean a gigantic step forward: http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v2/n11/abs/nmat1006.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.1.186 (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The colloquial use/abuse should stay. I have heard it as well. See [[1]] and wikt:Quantum leap The "abuse" is well sourced: BBC, CJR It has multiple definitions. Jim1138 (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with Jim1138 on several grounds. First, the BBC source is not authoritative, since it's from a popular 'news magazine', written by a journalist, focusing neither on language nor physics but on a James Bond movie. Second, the CJR source does not support the notion that the colloquial use is mistaken: it says 'using “quantum leap” to mean “big jump” is fully idiomatic', though 'it’s best to avoid using just plain “quantum” to mean “huge”'. Third, labelling a language usage 'misuse' or 'abuse' is inappropriate in an encyclopaedia. 'Non-standard', 'unidiomatic', etc., yes: these are factual claims. 'Misuse' / 'Abuse' is a value judgement. Finally, there is no reason to think that colloquial 'quantum leap' betrays or originates in a misunderstanding. Here's what the Merriam Webster Dictionary of English Usage - an established, sober, carefully-researched authority - has to say on the matter:
"The [cited] critics regard quantum jump as a technical term misused by ignorant laymen. The argument is academic, since the critized usage is now established as standard, but it seems worthwhile to point out that the idea originally underlying the extended sense was abruptness rather than largeness, and that this sense appears to have originated among scientists, not laymen. In any case, a quantum jump in physics may be small, but it is also significant. The extended sense is not quite as illogical as the commentators make it out to be."
So I suggest that this is a non-issue and the section could be deleted without losing anything of importance. Bramir (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead with this deletion.Bramir (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Primary topic?[edit]

Is this the primary topic, or should the disambiguation page be located here? Power~enwiki (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

physics[edit]

What are the newer textbooks on quantum mechanics? Aokaybest (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)