Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive July 2023

Good article reassessment for Metric system

Metric system has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I've started poking at this, but I'll be away from my shelf of introductory textbooks for a while (and also have a whole other cleanup job I ought to help with). It looks like the fixes required are providing citations and winnowing out the bits that sound like somebody in 2004 just wrote what on the top of their mind at the time. XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

This is still ongoing. The tone is somewhat more encyclopedic now, but there are several {{citation needed}} tags that still need filling. XOR'easter (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Major edit on History of quantum mechanics

Per our discussions elsewhere I merged all of the extensive history sections in introduction to quantum mechanics into history of quantum mechanics. Please see Talk:History_of_quantum_mechanics#Better_history_in_Introduction_to_q.m. for a list of remaining problems.

I think the result is a much better article, but it needs work of all kinds.

I propose to delete the content I moved from introduction to quantum mechanics forthwith before it can be edited and thus go out of sync. I can insert a summary in its place. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Where is the discussion on this merge or these merges? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a problem with this? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, the merge discussion is taking place here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Mole (again)

Please see Talk:Mole_(unit)#Incorrect_changes. fgnievinski (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

New shortcuts

Ahead of a piece I'm writing for the Signpost, I created 3 new shortcuts for rather useful pages of our project

• WP:PHYS/AALERTS
• WP:PHYS/RECOG
• WP:PHYS/DYK

I really don't know why I didn't think of that before, but those should come in handy, especially when inviting people to participate in the project. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

If the header content for the referenced pages are editable, please consider adding a few lines explaining to newbies what these pages mean. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to read the upcoming Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-07-17/Tips and tricks, (it's still in draft form, so might change a bit from now to publication now published). Or see WP:AALERTS and WP:RECOG for what those are. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Those are good resources for operational details and insider views.

As a newbie I was looking for the meaning and significance of the categories. "Recognized content" appears to be lists of articles. In other words what I was looking for at the tops of these pages is an answer to: "What is the significance of an article being on one of these lists?" Johnjbarton (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics Essays

This deletion debate may be of interest to the community here; the journal was also recently discussed in a different context. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The deletion debate has closed with a "keep". See also Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Physics_Essays for ongoing conversation. XOR'easter (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

One thing this many-page discussion is making clear is that we would benefit from more sources explicitly describing the area of fringe physics and how it operates. XOR'easter (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is an interesting one. There is a lot of trash that must be kept out of WP, and the idea of notable coverage and reliable sourcing is reasonably robust for most cases. However, my gut feel (and that of several others, it seems) is that this is the kind of things that one wants to be able to find in an encyclopaedia, and that it belongs. However, reliable sources about really bad fringe stuff is rarefied because its trashiness is so extremely obvious to the average technical person that no-one would spend their time documenting this. Oddly, this lack of coverage leaves a strange void where pseudoscience can survive, and can even obtain funding. And while it would be great if we could find a researcher documenting specific cases like this, maybe the best hope we have is someone researching the phenomenon? Anyhow, the guidelines seem to need tuning to allow for a dearth of research not necessarily making a topic unencyclopaedic. The real questions should be "Is it of reference value?", "Can we say something useful about it with confidence that this is correct?" and "Is this something to be avoided as it is primarily serving some agenda of using WP as a publishing platform?" —Quondum 20:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The article Physics Essays now has a source calling the journal the garbage that it obviously is, at least. But some kind of more general survey of fringe-physics publishing would be helpful, there and elsewhere. Few physicists want to spend time on such things, I believe, and when they do, few philosophy- or sociology-of-science journals would allow a paper so impolite. XOR'easter (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The preprint The Ecology of Fringe Science and its Bearing on Policy might be a good source for that. It is, of course, not published.--{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No, but Harry Collins is not a nobody either. Bartlett apparnetly work on a "Leverhulme Trust funded exploration of the sociology of ‘fringe’ physics." alongside Collins [1]. And LRJ also seems very legit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about this at AfD again. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft: complete rewrite of "introduction to eigenstates"

To me introduction to eigenstates should be both a non-mathematical survey and for gateway to many QM related articles. The current article has its heart in the right place but does not cover the bases.

I prepared a complete rewrite here: User:Johnjbarton/sandbox/introduction to eigenstates.

I would appreciate your review. In addition to fixes and suggestions, I would like feedback on replacing the current text with this draft.

Johnjbarton (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: Could you clarify why are you using "eigenstate" in your lead instead of quantum state? --ReyHahn (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

See Quantum state#Eigenstates and pure states for what the difference between an eigenstate and a quantum state is. (Edit: Note that I haven't read the article in detail, so I don't know what my position on it existing is.) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I am perplexed by the scope because it is a large rewrite. I just wanted to be sure that this proposal is a about a specific section and not the whole article.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@ReyHahn My intent was to subsume all the existing content in introduction to eigenstates. If you feel I am missing something please let me know.

Or perhaps you are asking if the proper title ought to be "introduction to quantum states"? I'm open to repurposing my material for that goal once we decide that I have met the original one. That might address some of @XOR'easter concern about, (roughly how can eigenstate be in the same sentence with introductory?) Johnjbarton (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear on the intended audience. To me, "eigenstate" is a sufficiently specialized term that few readers would, I think, be seeking an introduction to it specifically. An "introduction to quantum mechanics" makes sense, but an "introduction to diagonalizing Hamiltonians in degenerate time-independent perturbation theory" would be a little perplexing, for example. This sounds more like the latter. An eigenstate of an observable implies a definite value, or a 100% probability for a single outcome, of measuring that observable. Is this particular idea a concept that people with a cursory knowledge of quantum mechanics are searching for? Or, to say it another way, is this the primary heading that an introduction should be organized under?

The page was created all the way back in 2009 by splitting content out of the Introduction to quantum mechanics. Supposing that we do need an introduction to eigenstates, rather than an introduction to a broader topic, what would best fill the spot of being the "main article" or "further information" link where it was split off?

I don't want to disparage the work you've already put in; my being unclear could well just be a me problem! But I think it is worth asking yourself if what you have been writing is best thought of as an introduction to eigenstates or to something more broad instead. XOR'easter (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the existing title targets an audience that may not exist. Perhaps the content can be repurposed or repositioned?

The content in introduction to quantum mechanics covers a lot of territory. To me it functions more as an overview of all things QM than a booster seat for basics. These are different interpretations of "introduction".

So we could explore having these two different interpretations of "introduction" as a goal. That depends a lot on whether what I have succeeds as a start towards a boost-seat for basic QM or not.

A different more modest goal could be one inspired by @ReyHahn's comment: retitle to "introduction to quantum states" with a bit of a change to the lead.

And the most modest goal is the one I would like succeed first: deciding that the draft subsumes the existing article of the same title. So perhaps we could take up the ultimate goal in a fresh topic after we complete this goal? Johnjbarton (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure that Introduction to quantum mechanics was a disorganized pile of miscellaneous factoids (as happens with broad-scope articles over time). It looks like your reorganization has taken it in a good direction; I will try to have more detailed comments later. The QFT section definitely needs work; why are we citing a dictionary?! XOR'easter (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

We have both introduction to quantum mechanics and history of quantum mechanics. I think we should put some planning into what goes into which. As for the rewrite of introduction to eigenstates, maybe the target should be an "introduction to quantum states and measurements". Pedagogically, the concepts are intertwined. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Johnjbarton: I noticed you proposed the article for deletion for being too technical. I've opposed this as I don't think its the best course of action. Are you still planning on this rewrite and/or rename? Would it not be best to edit and/or move the article to preserve its history? --Voello _talk 17:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

> Are you still planning on this rewrite and/or rename?

No, the feedback here was that no rewrite would make sense: the topic is not suitable. Rename does not make sense because the root problem is that the topic is not considered "introductory" by its nature.

>Would it not be best to edit and/or move the article to preserve its history?

No, I do not believe it best it edit this content. I proposed what I think is much better content, but it was rejected because the topic is unsuitable. I'm unsure what you mean by "move"? How is that different from "rename"?

I thought that if we convert the page to a redirect the history would be preserved?

I am working towards incorporating some of the content I wrote (with contextual modifications) into a major revision of Introduction to quantum mechanics. The first step was merging the history from the Introduction into the History of quantum mechanics (done, take a look). The next step is to replace the history section in the Introduction with a much smaller version. That is under first review (see the Talk page).

Since you removed the PROD we need a new plan for that page.

(If there is some better way to communicate these interlocking steps please let me know). Johnjbarton (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification; I can understand how the article isn't the best as it is, and the topic that introductory. Regarding move/rename, they're the same; I apologise for any confusion caused by my choice of words. It's just with PROD pages are deleted without creating a redirect or providing a publicly viewable page history (though they can be undeleted). But yes, converting it into a redirect would preserve the history. Looking at all the work you've done with Introduction to quantum mechanics, when finished, it would probably give users who are looking for an intro all that they need. I'd say a redirect with history would be best. Though if you still feel that the article should be deleted, you can always nominate it on AFD. --Voello _talk 21:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok thanks! I will work on the redirect. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I checked all the articles linking in and changed them if they used the words "Introduction to eigenstates". Then I set the redirect to point to Quantum state. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Triboelectric effect

I have rewritten the Triboelectric effect page so it is fairly balanced, trying to:

• Represent the (many) conflicting views
• Avoid most of the unscience out there on this topic
• Do a decent job of referencing, including good older papers/books not just new ones

I know a fair amount about the topic, but feedback is always useful. (I think it may need a few more Figures.) Add comments here, or on my talk page. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Nice work! There is a bunch of work in the last 15 years applying atomic force microscope that might be worth mentioning. I patched up some problems in the history. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions, but I am not sure how to include the conductive AFM work in a meaningful and non-contraversial way. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I am no expert on this topic, but review or survey articles can provide guides to giving due weight to various approaches without having to make your own judgment as to what is worthy to include. As example might be the review article Atomic Force Microscopy – A Powerful Tool for Studying Contact Electrification. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That is an interesting article, but if you have a careful look at the references you will see that it is a particular view rather than a general one; some science is more equal than others (apologies to Eric Arthur Blair). Ldm1954 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, as I said I am not a content expert. No doubt you know of better reviews. But the principle of finding secondary reviews upon which to base due weight is a good one. Probably no review is truly neutral. But if a review represents what an expert would consider mainstream approaches, that is probably good enough. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to create and adopt "Teaching quantum mechanics"

I propose to move this page in the main content:

• User:Johnjbarton/sandbox/teaching_quantum_mechanics

I believe the topic is notable, the content referenced including secondary sources, it can be linked from both Introduction to quantum mechanics and Physics education, and it can be a resource for improving Introduction to quantum mechanics. I would like to tag its Talk page with "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics,..." (I don't know what you call that; its what I meant by "adopt"). Johnjbarton (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems like a viable topic for an article.--Srleffler (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds like an encyclopedic topic to me. XOR'easter (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I concur that it is a good topic. One issue/question: what are the target audiences? I remember doing some QM in high school in the UK. In the US undergrad and grad are very different. In the US teaching QM to Physics/Chemistry/Materials Science students needs to be different -- very different as the math proficiency is vastly different. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I've seen papers in the physics education area that have addressed teaching QM at high school and at undergraduate levels; an article here could cover both. XOR'easter (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding audience: I imagine the "Teaching quantum mechanics" page could accommodate information about the educational issues at various levels, depending mainly on what kinds of reliable references we can find. For better or worse, graduate education is rarely subject to introspection or external review so I don't expect we'll find much. That seems ok: the greater challenge is introductory levels.

I would hope we focus on reliable information for "teachers" broadly interpreted, but not say educational policy or comparisons across nations of levels of preparation. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the positive feedback and edits. The page Teaching quantum mechanics is now live.

Additional discussion can continue on its Talk page.

Resolved

Johnjbarton (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Universality

Do you think I should request a deletion proposal, a speedy deletion or do nothing with Universality and quantum systems? ReyHahn (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

This article should never have existed, but it's a bit too late for a speedy deletion. Why don't you just redirect it to Universality (dynamical systems)? Tercer (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

What is your objection to the page? It is certainly not well sourced, and it is not obvious to me exactly what it is useful for. For certain I would not turn it into a redirect to Universality (dynamical systems) as that is completely different. (The dynamical systems page needs serious work, and as a MSE Prof I have reservations about some of the claims it makes; maybe it should be deleted as unverified.) Ldm1954 (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

The physics described here is often described in terms of effective field theories. A redirect could point to that page. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Devil's advocate: I do not see the connection, plus that page also has sourcing problems. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I would not see it from that page either. And in any case, the page Universality and quantum systems seems to be mixture of two different topics. The introduction and the last section can be interpreted as discussing effective field theories (EFTs), whereas the middle two sections are about some low-energy properties of 1D potentials. It is an odd mix.

What I perceived to be the connection, is that the text discusses the low-energy properties that do not depend on the high-energy details of the models. In comparison, an EFT is a model that only incorporates the low-energy degrees of freedom, and which is be obtained e.g. by taking some more detailed model and integrating out the high-energy degrees of freedom, in hope of obtaining something universal. Also, the reference used in the last section is about EFTs (see the abstract). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

After browsing through the last reference, I can see that the choice of topic is very much inspired by it, and it also makes the connection between the 1D potentials and EFTs clearer. In the article, the Schrödinger equation is used as an example of how to construct an EFT. On this Wikipedia page, the author does his own calculation and prefers to talk about 'universality' instead. Still, a redirect to effective field theory does not seem completely absurd. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

There are various kinds of problem-independent analyses appropriate for QM problems. Approximations based on scattering particle wavelength compared to target sizes (as it seems the page wants to talk about) for example, or the limit of hbar to zero for another.

However I didn't see anything in the references that claimed "universality" for QM. That categorization seems like original research. No reliable reference connects the subjects discussed to the title of the article. There is "Universality of quantum mechanics" and "Universality of quantum computing" but neither of these things are what the title refers to or the article discusses. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

Thank you for your feedback. I have opened a request for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universality and quantum systems. Please consider commenting on it. --ReyHahn (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Cavitation

Hi, I have tagged the article on cavitation as needing expert attention. It appears to muddle up several different usages of the term, resulting in a fair scatter of nonsense throughout. I have gone into further detail at Talk:Cavitation#Meaning and scope. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Nationalistic edits?

I find the addition of national-origin to the names of scientists in physics articles to be irrelevant and objectionable details. It would make sense in the context of a section about the national science programs or policies, but otherwise it seems to be thinly veiled nationalism.

A recent example: an edit on Planck constant to "It was the English physicist John William Nicholson..."

The Ernest Rutherford page had an edit war about his national origin. Discussing his birthplace and travels is a matter of history, but then this person was a physicist, full stop.

Am I off base? Johnjbarton (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that they are irrelevant, although I don't find them objectionable. Editing them out may be a pain. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I will just edit them out in normal course, thanks. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a topic that comes up every so often in different forums. Personally I include nationality where it's known and not controversial, and leave it out if there's potential issues. (Same for the lede and the short description.) As part of MOS:FIRSTBIO#3, nationality is a typical part of context though, so I'd urge caution before any mass removal of this information in the first sentance without much wider consensus. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Educational resources section

This is an expansion of some recent comments in #Electrostatic, and also others recently on this page with an education component by User:Johnjbarton. I am going to suggest adding to many key Physics pages an Educational resources (wordsmithing allowed) section. Some may have this; I am suggesting trialing this as a general recommendation. If we decide it works then we can cross suggest it to other projects, or abandon it.
Yes/No/Horrible ? Ldm1954 (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what the suggestion is. What would go into an educational resource section? Science museum like demonstrations? --ReyHahn (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Whatever is appropriate and available: podcasts, video, papers on demonstrations and probably more. As the section states, material people can go to for educational information. In some cases (Static electricity, Triboelectricity and Electron diffraction) this would be easy for me to do. In others it may be demanding to find and I am throwing that out to the wider community. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I made a quick (incomplete) version in Triboelectric_effect#Educational_resources. This is not supposed to be complete, just illustrative. I don't have time today for more. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

For purely illustrative things you could just put 'em on this page. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, this section has not been vetted by the community so you can't just use this discussion to revert edits yet, especially when MOS basically says the opposite, these are literally external links. It also has a lot of original research/POV like "It discusses nicely" Aaron Liu (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:EL would definitely apply, also WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOTGUIDE. Would need to be careful such a section doesn't just turn into a place for people to promote their favoured resources, so I'm generally opposed to this as anything more than a couple of items within an "External links" section. Strongly opposed to it being a section in it's own right above "References". As said above, if it's illustrative things, they should be integrated as part of the page itself. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

While I think that such links could indeed be educational, how can we reasonably handle deletion of links as non-educational? Anyone might add a link and assert it is educational; anyone might delete a link by asserting it is not. These links don't have a vetting process comparable to peer review, broad citation, or discussion in secondary sources. So we would need to have criteria for inclusion that would not backfire. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I cam across other pages with sections named "External links" as discussed in WP:EL. Using this name for the section avoids implicit endorsement (whether or not the link is educational is a judgement we need not find evidence to support). With a section title matching WP:EL, we have extensive information for settling edit disputes.

Consequently I endorse this proposal with 1) restraint and 2) wordsmithing the section heading to the (conventional) "External links".

I will apply this idea to the trial run on Triboelectric effect. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

We can change it to external links. I was suggesting trying something new, but it looks like there is no support so I will drop it. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry to discover that my suggestion/change was used as a | justification to move the list after the References. So annoying. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

That is one of my objections to External Links. The "law" about placement makes it less likely to be read. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I was going to move that section anyway, no matter what it was called, given it clearly was a list of external links. We have a manual of style (MOS:LAYOUT) to help make Wikipedia more consistent and professional, not to be "law" or "annoying". -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Should I TNT? DMRG of the Heisenberg model

I just found DMRG of the Heisenberg model. It is nice to have specific solutions to specific problems using specific methods. However this opens a whole can of worms for all kind of problems with all kinds of solutions. I think maybe DMRG of the Heisenberg model should be right away removed. Another option is to merge it into Heisenberg model (quantum). What do you think? ReyHahn (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge at least or propose delete. The application section of Density matrix renormalization group has no references so that could be a better place. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done if anybody is against please be free to revert.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Quantum confinement of Bloch waves (was Draft:Quantum confinement)

I am reviewing Draft:Quantum confinement. Quantum confinement is currently a redirect to Potential well. My question is whether the draft should be accepted as an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The topic of the draft is not actually Quantum confinement but Quantum confinement of Bloch waves (QCBW) theory. It does not discuss quantum confinement in general and should not replace the redirect. I am also not convinced that QCBW theory by itself meets WP:GNG. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I commented on the earlier draft. Author is very responsive. I encouraged the article as a section for Bloch theorem. For me the confinement discussion rounds out the Bloch wave topic, but I'm not an expert.

Could also extend Quantum confinement but to me readers of generic confinement would need quite a lot of background for confinement of Bloch waves, whereas readers of Bloch waves are already interested in the area and likely to know about potential wells. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in my draft. The correct title of my draft is "Quantum confinement of Bloch waves" (which exists under my sandbox as well) rather than the file "Quantum confinement," in which you made revisions today.

I am still not familiar with the Wikipedia system. Sorry for the confusion. Luman2009 (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Luman2009 The two pages Draft:Quantum confinement and Draft:Quantum confinement of Bloch waves seem identical (?) and are confusing. Please delete the page Draft:Quantum confinement after you move any relevant content to Draft:Quantum confinement of Bloch waves.

@Robert McClenon Please switch to Draft:Quantum confinement of Bloch waves

I will rename this topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I deleted the page "Draft: Quantum confinement." But Sorry, I don't know how to keep the revisions made by Robert McClenon and his revision records on the page "Draft: Quantum confinement of Bloch waves." Luman2009 (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

The main problem I have is that no one called this "Quantum confinement of Bloch waves" save one specific researcher in China called Shang Yuang Ren.

The problem, I think, is known as the repeated finite potential well problem, or N finite potential wells problem.

It's a fun problem, I've tackled it (numerically, with a horribly slow algorithm) myself during my masters. The main thing that happens is that the Bohr-like solutions of the 'infinite' potential well (i.e. energy levels) get multiplied by N, creating clusters of solutions. As you increase N these clusters slowly become more and more band-like.

I recall that the shape of the box matters for how many solutions there are per well (it's been a while, so I might recall wrong here), but as you take N to infinity you still get band gaps appearing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like Kronig-Penney model, or some generalization of it. The general model is indeed of wide interest. But this draft is not about such models in general, only about Ren's contribution to the theory of such models (this is what is called QCBW theory in the draft). A section at Particle in a one-dimensional lattice#Finite lattice is probably enough to cover this. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

It's indeed related to it. But Kronig-Penney is an infinite number of wells, so the boundary conditions at the end of each well at the same throughout, which greatly simplifies the math and leads to exact analytical solutions. This is what happens between N = 1 and N = Infinity. Maybe Ren found ways to approximate/separate things. But that article presents "the one dimensional case" as something novel, whereas it's bang on Kronig Penney, and many of its other conclusions are things that are already known/known under different names. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

"It's indeed related to it. "

Where did the draft mention Kronig-Penney or use more or less similar math/technique?

"But that article presents the one-dimensional case as something novel, whereas it's bang on Kronig Penney, and many of its other conclusions are things that are already known/known under different names. "

I would appreciate it if you could answer simple questions:

1. The draft concluded that: there are two different types of electronic states in a finite one-dimensional crystal: Size-dependent or boundary-dependent. Is this conclusion known before? If yes, where?

2. How many surface states are there in each band gap of a finite one-dimensional crystal of length L=Na (a, the potential period; N, a positive integer)？ How did you know? Luman2009 (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope that you understand that if the unanimous answer is NO and NOWHERE to the first question, that would mean that nobody here knows about it and then we could argue it is not notable for Wikipedia. You have not been able to demonstrate successfully if the content in the draft is very well known by the scientific community. Showing the opposite would mean that it is WP:ORIGINAL and thus it is WP:TOOSOON for Wikipedia.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. To almost any subject, the number of people who know it is always much smaller than those who do not. As the references in the draft show, many physicists working on the relevant subjects already know those conclusions and further confirm them. Of course, the very well-knownness is always relative.

The difficulty of the theory in the draft is mainly the mathematics, which is more difficult than that many physicists are very familiar with. That probably is why the theory has not been widely understood. The draft's primary purpose is to help more physicists to understand the subject's physics without involving many mathematics details. Luman2009 (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you provide an estimation of how popular or niche this is? Is it a handful of scientists? Again I worry that the misunderstoodness means that it is WP:TOOSOON (this is not about its noteworthyness but about its actual notability).--ReyHahn (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

"Where did the draft mention Kronig-Penney or use more or less similar math/technique?"

It doesn't mention KP, but that it doesn't mention KP shows you just how... poor i guess would be the term, is the acknowledgements to prior scholarship in that article are. Kinda like someone coming up with a 'novel' mathematical result whereas they've shown that if you inscribe circles of radius equal to the length of the sides of right triangle, you will get get $\pi R_{C}^{2}=\pi R_{A}^{2}+\pi R_{B}^{2}$, and call this the "square triangle inscribed circle theorem" and without making any mention of the Pythagorean theorem.

As for question 1, I don't know what Shen calls side-dependent and boundary dependent states. But I suspect it's the exact same thing as the stats that depend on the number of wells (size?), and the states that depend on the shape of the well (boundary?).

For 2, I don't remember what the number is, of if there's a clear formula for them, but whatever number of states you get in a well, you multiply by N wells and that's generally the number of states. However, some of those states would become unbound, and those are infinite.

Again, this is all from memory of 15+ years ago. I could misremember things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia provides broadly useful information on many topics. It does not provide all information on all topics. The dividing line has been and is worked out by some criteria that are debated in general and in each case. The criteria for Wikipedia publication is almost 100% opposite the criteria for scientific publication: not original and not "first".

I believe the core issues with your draft is whether it serves Wikipedia reader goals. At present, and as a separate page, the article seems narrowly focused on a topic with limited interest.

I believe that the general subject -- the impact of finite boundary conditions on theory of solids -- is a valuable addition. But the article comes across as "one recent approach to finite boundary conditions on theory of solids". Wikipedia is not the correct venue for such a subject. Honestly almost no reader of Wikipedia is interested in such an article; a reader with such interests will reach for the primary literature.

Personally I would like to see additions to our content on the theory of solids and of the impact of finite boundary conditions. If that included discussion of the theory in the article fine. However, deep drill down on one newish theory won't be read and won't help readers interested in the topic.

Could the article be modified to include more breadth and less depth? Johnjbarton (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.

The quantum confinement of Bloch waves (QCBW) theory described in the draft combines the physics core of Bloch theorem --- the potential periodicity --- and the physical core of Particle in a box model --- the very existence of a specific boundary and a specific finite size---to develop a more general analytical quantum mechanics theory. The theory obtained unexpected results, explained puzzles, and gave new predictions; subsequent investigations have confirmed many. The significant difficulty of the QCBW theory is mathematics, which is relatively new and unfamiliar to many physicists. That probably is why the QCBW theory has yet to be widely understood.

The draft's primary purpose is to help more readers understand the QCBW theory's major conclusions without involving mathematics details. It seems that the idea does not fit Wikipedia very well.

Therefore, I withdraw my submitted draft, "Quantum confinement of Bloch waves." Luman2009 (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Isn't this the same material we discussed back in April? XOR'easter (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm finished with this topic, at least for now. I don't know whether the math is math that I learned in college and have forgotten, or whether it is math that I didn't learn. I know that the physics is beyond what I studied in college as a chemistry major. I'm glad someone understands this. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)