Talk:Fractional quantum Hall effect

Clearly something interesting happened with this discovery, but it is not remotely obvious to the layperson what that might be. Could somebody who understands this please tell the rest of the world what this means, in real-person terms? It got a Nobel Prize, and this should merit some sort of explication. 68.50.169.194 (talk) 03:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this should be classified as low importance. It won a noble prize afterall! Surely some indication that physicists at least regard it as important. Grj23 (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I also think that it's a consensus view by now that composite fermions are the better model. See http://www.phys.psu.edu/~jain/cf.html for example. Grj23 (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The importance rating doesn't really mean anything. No one pays attention to whether an article is "low" or "mid" importance. Anyone capable of editing a somewhat-technical article like this will be able to judge for themselves how important and worthwhile it is, and that's exactly what happens. :-) --Steve (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Diagram

I've created a video to help explain QHE. It's on the Quantum Hall Effect page. I think a similar video should maybe appear here. Any thoughts Grj23 (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations

I'm not sure we are citing the real key works. Greiter, Dharma-Wardana... etc. Not key citations in the field (although respectable works) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.66.146 (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I also removed an entire paragraph of fringe theory on the topic which was certainly not needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.66.146 (talk) 12:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Claimed solution

This edit cites a prepint and claims it "explains the existence of the $\nu =5/2$ state". Could someone knowledgeable have at look at this? Paradoctor (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Something missing?

"However, Laughlin's explanation was a phenomenological guess..."

This sentence in the lede makes no sense. It follows text that said nothing about an explanation, much less what the explanation was, or even that it was Laughlin's (the award was stated to be given for the discovery of the effect, not for a theoretical explanation). This seems like an editing mistake. Did something get removed? TricksterWolf (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)