Talk:Wave packet
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. | |
Dubious, unreferenced claim
editThe current article says:
Quantum mechanics ascribes a special significance to the wave packet; In the Copenhagen interpretation, it is interpreted as a probability amplitude, its norm squared describing the probability density that a particle or particles in a particular state will be measured to have a given position or momentum.
This statement is unreferenced and incorrect. The sentence is mostly correct for a "wave function" not at all correct for a "wave packet". A wave packet is a multiple wave construct. It's interpretation is entire orthogonal to that construction. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- The last sentence of the same paragraph is also incorrect
- The dispersive character of solutions of the Schrödinger equation has played an important role in rejecting Schrödinger's original interpretation, and accepting the Born rule.[citation needed]
- Schrödinger's interpretation paper of May 1926 assigns the complex square of the wavefunction (again not packet) to "space-density of electricity"; Born's probability density interpretation appears in July 1926. See Whittaker V2, pg 275. Schrödinger's wave packet paper comes out in 1928 (Whittaker v2 pg 290); it's a paper about classical limits. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Moreover the last and first sentence of this paragraph directly contradict each other. At first the packet is special and describes the particle; at last the dispersive character of solutions invalidate packets as descriptions. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Referenced material added and off target material removed. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Resolved
"Historical background" is for wave-particle duality, not the topic wave packet.
editThis article incorrectly equates "wave packet" with wave particle duality. The history section is especially egregious. It does not have a single reference about the history of wave packets. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Quantum wavepacket history is covered in a short chapter:
- Kragh, H. (2009). Wave Packet. In: Greenberger, D., Hentschel, K., Weinert, F. (eds) Compendium of Quantum Physics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70626-7_232
- It could be the basis of a rewrite of the Historical background. Classical or optical wave packets are not discussed however. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- I replaced the section. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Resolved
Interesting article but
editI really like the Shrödinger part where it is used as a way to show what a dispersive medium can do, but I would like to add that I don't know many particles obbeying the Shrodinger's equation. If you describe photons, you will use Maxwell's equation and quantize them as much as you can, if you look at electrons, you will deal with the Dirac equation. None of them exhibit that dispersive behavior (at least in vacuum). That dispersive behavior is a pathology of the model, it creates faster than light signals. Klinfran (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Proposal to revert edits related to "quadratic phase"
edit@Cosmia Nebula added content about quadratic phase but without references. This content cannot be verified. I would normally just revert such edits but later ones on Airy waves did have references. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it is not the first time this has happened. I had the exact same issue with recent edits in the wave equation article, which I addressed on her talk page. (I actually suggested the citer tool I found on your userpage, which is amazing)
- Then (to a lesser degree) the same happend in the weyl algebra article, which I almost had to WP:TAGBOMB
- To her credit, she somewhat improved the referencing afterwards and I do believe it is clearly a case of WP:GF as the mathematics is usually very solid. However, when she goes into "storytelling mode" the situation becomes more problematic; violating WP:NOR.
- It feels like referencing is being treated as an afterthought rather than the basis of the edits. If WP:V and WP:NOR is not taken into consideration in future, then she shouldn't be surprised her edits will be reverted. Otherwise we'll keep having this discussion over and over again.
- Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)