Talk:Umdeutung paper

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Name

@Johnjbarton: In Constructing Quantum Mechanics by Duncan this paper is referred as the "Umdeutung paper" do you think this is enough to change the name of the article into something more digestible? ReyHahn (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Extra: the term the "Umdeutung paper" was coined by Duncan from that book but I have seen it in other books that cite Duncan like [1].--ReyHahn (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English),

• "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources). This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources."

No native English speaker would use the current title to name this subject. Lots of sources give the translated title and I think that is one option. However, this article is not that paper and using it as the title will confuse readers expecting an article about the words in the title rather than article about a paper with those words in its title. Similarly no native English speaker unfamiliar with the topic, thus most of our readers, will not know "Umdeutung".

Your Duncan source has this at the first use of "Umdeutung":

• Heisenberg’s (1925c) “reinterpretation” (Umdeutung) paper

So that is a source for using "Heisenberg’s 1925 “reinterpretation” (Umdeutung) paper"

which includes all of the relevant info.

Later Duncan says

• The paper, entitled “Quantum-theoretical reinterpretation of kinematic and mechanical relations,” is now universally referred to by historians of physics as the Umdeutung, or “reinterpretation” paper.

but Duncan also mentions in a footnote that "reinterpretation" appears in other papers by other authors. This is a strong source for both "Umdeutung" and '"reinterpretation" paper' in the title of the article, as well as Heisenberg to disambiguate.

So my vote: Heisenberg’s 1925 “reinterpretation” (Umdeutung) paper Johnjbarton (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It is too long, I would agree on something shorter like Heisenberg's Umdeutung paper, keeping Heisenberg just for technicalities see [2].--ReyHahn (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Also the full name will remain in the lead and in the redirect.--ReyHahn (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

After going through all of these references: [3] it is clear that this is a common term, it always leads to Heisenberg and it is concise enough. The full name is a redirect so it works. If we want another title we can discuss it, but I think it does not hurt to have to have a link for Umdeutung paper.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The only practical way for me to find this article was to go read the Werner Heisenberg article. In particle, "Heisenberg" in the search box does not include this article. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Relationship between matrix mechanics and correspondence principle.

The first two sections of this paper:

• Bub, Jeffrey. "Quantum mechanics as a principle theory." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 31.1 (2000): 75-94.

has a unique albeit lightly referenced history of the relationship between Bohr's and Heisenberg's work during the critical first days. Based on my reading of the historical correspondence principle, Bub's version makes sense to me. (The rest of the article is quite abstract math).

@Reyhahn for your information. I don't know if it is directly useful but I found it interesting. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)