Talk:Quantum mechanics: Difference between revisions
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
imported>John Stephenson (Mention on BBC blog) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::Okay, I put maths back in. | ::Okay, I put maths back in. | ||
::The article is basically straight from WP. If you look at the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Quantum_mechanics&action=history history], you see that the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Quantum_mechanics&oldid=100005095 first version] has all the signs of a Wikipedia article (for instance, interwiki links to different languages) and that the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Quantum_mechanics&diff=100101419&oldid=100005095 difference] between the version copied from Wikipedia and the current version is fairly small. I think nobody here will complain if you start afresh. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 21:54, 13 September 2007 (CDT) | ::The article is basically straight from WP. If you look at the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Quantum_mechanics&action=history history], you see that the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Quantum_mechanics&oldid=100005095 first version] has all the signs of a Wikipedia article (for instance, interwiki links to different languages) and that the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Quantum_mechanics&diff=100101419&oldid=100005095 difference] between the version copied from Wikipedia and the current version is fairly small. I think nobody here will complain if you start afresh. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 21:54, 13 September 2007 (CDT) | ||
==Mention on BBC blog== | |||
BBC journalist Rory Cellan-Jones admits he knows nothing about quantum mechanics, but it might be useful to know that as a layperson he [http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/03/will_wikipedia_always_win.html finds the Wikipedia version of this article easier to read]. This is another article identifying CZ's number of articles as a problem. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 02:47, 1 April 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 01:47, 1 April 2008
I categorized this as status "Developing" because, although there have been a couple of major revisions or additions (the "Effects" and "History" sections), the vast majority of the text is still a near-verbatim copy of the Wikipedia article. Bruce M.Tindall 16:25, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
Math?
There is a question how do we manage quantum mechanics articles, i.e. whether we put it under Math Workgroup or not. User:Jitse Niesen has just removed the math category. Consider however this post by User:Greg Woodhouse on forum.[1] I'm leaning to Greg's point of view. See also AMS classification on CZ:Mathematics Workgroup, quantum theory is a notable node. Any thoughts? --AlekStos 09:25, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
- There are formulations of quantum mechanics that are most definitely on the border between physics and mathematics. The tradition starts with Weyl's book on Group Theory and Quantum Mechanics (1928), then von Neumann's famous book (1932) that contained lots of new math, and more recently Reed and Simon (1972), and Thirring (1979). Beyond my horizon is string theory which is almost only mathematics, although as I understand it, string theory is more than quantum theory (I'm told that it includes general relativity). I would say that quantum mechanics has enough mathematical content to put it in the math category as well. Further, Jitse will appreciate that people who apply quantum mechanics are heavy users of numerical mathematics, so also from that angle there is contact.
- Another thing: who is mainly responsible for this article? Is it a CZ author, or is it straight from WP? In other words, if I would change things, on whose toes would I step? --Paul Wormer 09:18, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
- Okay, I put maths back in.
- The article is basically straight from WP. If you look at the history, you see that the first version has all the signs of a Wikipedia article (for instance, interwiki links to different languages) and that the difference between the version copied from Wikipedia and the current version is fairly small. I think nobody here will complain if you start afresh. -- Jitse Niesen 21:54, 13 September 2007 (CDT)
Mention on BBC blog
BBC journalist Rory Cellan-Jones admits he knows nothing about quantum mechanics, but it might be useful to know that as a layperson he finds the Wikipedia version of this article easier to read. This is another article identifying CZ's number of articles as a problem. John Stephenson 02:47, 1 April 2008 (CDT)