Talk:Bose–Einstein condensation (network theory)
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | The contents of the Bose–Einstein condensation (network theory) page were merged into Bianconi–Barabási model on 17 January 2021 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
Wave functions of complex systems
edit"Despite their irreversible and nonequilibrium nature these networks follow Bose statistics and can undergo Bose-Einstein condensation." Interesting. I have never heard of this interpretation before. Ultracold wavefunctions usually expand, so the coldest would be the largest. Can anybody provide some more information on this "wave functions of complex systems / networks" interpretation for me? Thank you. :) -- kanzure 15:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is not good
editThere are several notational oddnesses, and I am not sure about formulae. This is not the way the BE condensation is explained in a common statistical mechanics lesson (or at least this is my experience about it). This article need to be enhanced a lot. Ittakezou0 (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Pauli Exclusion
editI don't think it makes sense to mention that the pep does NOT apply- this gives the impression that bosons are particular, and fermi statistics are more general. This is misleading as bose and fermi statistics are independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.216.0.177 (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is research
editThis article talks about personal research without any broad impact (people working with BEC does not even know this topic). I do not understand what it does here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.148.233 (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
My concern with this article is not the importance of the topic (BECs are certainly an important area of quantum physics research at this time, and should be covered on Wikipedia). However, this article is essentially a re-statement of a single paper. From the citations, that paper is: "Bianconi, G.; Barabási, A.-L. (2001). "Bose–Einstein Condensation in Complex Networks." Phys. Rev. Lett. 86: 5632–35." The rest of the citations do not back up the validity or acceptance of this paper. Rather, they are generic references to the topic of network theory. Unless someone can come up with further references that substantiate this article, I'm left with one conclusion: this is a single-sourced article which is entirely based on a primary source. As such it should be rewritten or removed. -Miskaton (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Chaos Solitons and Fractals? How canst thou doubt them?! --92.78.24.246 (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is that the tag should be removed. This article has now been improved and in the present form it is of high interdisciplinary interest. It is a fantastic example of the power of physics theory (i.e. the laws of natural events) to unveil the unknown rules of nature in multiple fields, that have been considered before completely different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.20.233.118 (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
User Miskaton is completely right. I have just finished reading said article, and this wikipedia page is a plain synthesis of it. It represents the sole opinion of the authors. Also, I can understand the interest in this type of interdisciplinar research, and even the elegance in finding a connection between Bose-Einstein and Network theory. But as a biologist interested in what network theory can do for me, I am not convinced in the same manner as the previous commenter about the Power of Physics Theory to unveil the unknown rules of nature. Just my opinion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.117.40.165 (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is not a physics article, I believe it should have a completely different title, to mention BEC in the title is misleading, as much as I understand that to mention Einstein in ones work attracts more audience. --Omblauman (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree - it is not physics, it is network theory, but the mechanism of the "condensation" is the same, statistically speaking. Bose-Einstein statistics need not be restricted in application to only physics problems any more than the concept of entropy needs to be restricted to thermodynamic applications, so I think BEC in the title is appropriate. PAR (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Multiple pages about this topic
edithttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_model_(network_theory) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bianconi%E2%80%93Barab%C3%A1si_model both have almost the same content.