Talk:Hamiltonian

I'm to fork this page off; W. R. can't suffer the indignity of having other "Hamiltonians" share this page with having his own. Also here's a link to Dab solver, there seems to be a problem with certain people not knowing what a Hamiltonian is. Ema--or (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics) the same as Hamiltonian function? If they need to be both listed, they should be listed together.--92.208.33.124 (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No, they are different. The Hamilton function is from classical mechanics, an improved (so some say) way to do Newtonian mechanics. It happens to have the right form for use in quantum mechanics, except it is an operator in the latter case. Gah4 (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Too many

I was just surprised how many articles there are on Hamiltonian. Do we really need all of them? Should some be combined? The answers can be yes followed by no, but I do wonder. Gah4 (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: apparently withdrawn -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Hamiltonian → Hamiltonian (disambiguation) – The Hamiltonian refers specifically to what this page calls the Hamiltonian function (which it is never called). All of these other terms other than its use in QM are niche and this should be referenced from a hatnote in the Hamiltonian mechanics article. This DAB is confusing to those who want to read more about Hamiltonians, but are unable to figure out which one it is. Per hatnote and DAB policies, the common name goes to the most popular usage and a hatnote can link to other more niche uses. Therefore, this page should be moved to an explicit dab and the name should be redirected to Hamiltonian mechanics Footlessmouse (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:NWFCTM. As a non-physicist, my first and only association with "Hamiltonian" is "related to Alexander Hamilton". The association may be massive and obvious in the field of physics, but relatively unknown to laypersons, who would see WP:SURPRISE at "Hamiltonian" going to a physics article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Zxcvbnm: That doesn't make sense, the only thing on the page that uses the name Hamiltonian by itself is the said function. All the others simply begin with Hamiltonian. You are grossly abusing policy trying to stretch that to say what comes to my mind. It is by far the most common usage of the term in general, period. And again, the only one that is called plainly "Hamiltonian". Again, this is much more confusing than a hat note would be. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note If you go through and look at page views, you will find that all pages on this topic that aren't themselves subtopics of Hamiltonian mechanics have an order of magnitude less page views than Hamiltonian mechanics. It is obviously not what comes to my mind first, it also is what comes to Google's mind first and everyone else. The Hamiltonian is an extremely famous concept in physics known of anyone who has taken any course in the subject. It is, therefore once again, undeniably more common than any of the others. Hat notes prevent any surprise, nothing in the policies raised above apply here. Thanks. Footlessmouse (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I suppose some people looking for Alexander might put in Hamiltonian, but then again they might also try Hamaltin, Hamaltun, or about 10 other ways to spell it wrong. It does seem that associates of Alexander were sometimes called Hamiltonians, as those with the current administration are called Trumpers. So, even though there are a very large number looking for Alexander, I suspect that the fraction that come here isn't so large. Gah4 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note Per 30 days, Alexander Hamilton gets 586K views, Hamiltonian mechanics gets 22K views, and Hamiltonian path gets about 16K views. While I am sympathetic to the move request, "order of magnitude less page views" is incorrect. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 02:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Note I missed the article on Hamiltonian path, my bad, but Alexander Hamilton does not count, there is not page beginning with Hamiltonian that redirects to Alexander Hamilton, it is a see also and not part of the DAN. Also, please actually check all the resources on the WP:DAB policy, the Google search that doesn't take our history into account and Google books, etc. Over 90% of the results are for Hamiltonian mechanics. Hamiltonian path is much more niche than Hamiltonian mechanics and people looking for it will include "path". And again, none of these are called the standalone term "Hamiltonian" a note by itself that is worthy of making it the primary topic. Also, "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 100% applies here if nothing else. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• If Hamiltonian function is never used then maybe it should be called Hamiltonian (function). But Alexander Hamilton gets such a ludicrously high amount of views that I find it hard to believe that nobody would be searching for Hamiltonian in relation to him. Also note that Hamiltonian is used in the article to refer to Hamilton's political allies and economic plan._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• @ZXCVBNM: that can be accomplished with a hat note. You can look at the page views of redirects, the redirect file Hamiltonian function gets more views than this DAB. So, it is still, by far, the most notable target for this specific form of this term. Just like all the talks at WP:DAB about New York and Apple vs Apple Inc. By literally every policy at WP:DAB, this should be moved. Footlessmouse (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Footlessmouse: For me it's showing the dabpage gets about 4x more views than the redirect. That means only 1/4 of people who visit the dabpage are looking for the Hamiltonian as you describe it. So consider me skeptical that it's the obvious primary topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• @ZXCVBNM: I'm not sure how I got that wrong, I used the tools on the other page but must have gotten confused. Anyways, that is a false metric because it is under Hamiltonian mechanics which gets many times more views than the DAB and so there is no way of knowing if that is true, and in fact is very likely not. Again, per all the policy at WP:DAB this should be moved, it is exactly like York and New York example when compared with Hamilton and Hamiltonian path and it is just like Apple vs Apple Inc when compared with QM. Please use the tools the WP:DAB page provides and fully assess yourself rather than shut me down for technicalities in the reasoning presented. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Starting over: Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC this page should point to Hamiltonian mechanics because (a) it is the only term (other than its quantum counterpart) that is called a or the Hamiltonian all the others have modifiers or qualifiers and (b) by qualifier two at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and basically all the other policies listed at WP:DAB, including the standalone term notability ;which everyone is free to check. I apologize for any previous mistakes, but this conversation needs to pivot to focus on the primary topic qualifications as outlined in WP:DAB policies. Footlessmouse (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

As it is, this page is actually a "List of things named after Hamilton" instead of a disambiguation page. I agree with you that the Hamiltonian operator is the only thing actually referred to as "the Hamiltonian", but I don't agree that the page should be just a redirect to Hamiltonian mechanics, because there are two different Hamiltonian operators: the classical and the quantum ones. We have though 22k page views for Hamiltonian mechanics, and 26k for Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics), indicating that neither is the primary topic, in fact the quantum one is slightly more popular. Tercer (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

My expectation is that more would be looking for the quantum version. If Hamiltonian comes here, then they will come here first, then to the QM page. Since the quantum version is named after the classical one, that doesn't seem too strange. Without looking it up, I suspect that momentum goes to the classical version. Note that it is only the quantum version that is an operator, but both are commonly called just Hamiltonian. Gah4 (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I figured we would have a special hatnote for the quantum operator and a regular hatnote pointing back to the DAB. I realize that the quantum operator is more popular (because of the "quantum" adjective) but it has less historical education value, as it is based on the classical version, and physics students learn about the concept after studying Hamiltonian mechanics (which means that the vast majority of the views to are from curious laypersons interested in quantum mechanics who likely have no idea what a Hamiltonian is). If this falls through, we should at least rename Hamiltonian function to Hamiltonian (function) and make reference to both it and the quantum version in the lead so that the two most common things called the "Hamiltonian" are promoted above all the other niche topics. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Note I have brought out the two functions actually referred to as the "Hamiltonian" above the rest of the list. This is similar to Rice (disambiguation). I still believe this should be redirected with hat-notes, but at least now it won't be as surprising or confusing. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

After further consideration and a few edits to the page, I have decided to with withdraw my request. I will close the discussion tomorrow if there is no more input. Footlessmouse (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.