Talk:History of quantum mechanics/Archive 1

Intro paragraph...
This sentence

"...the 1900 quantum hypothesis by Max Planck that any energy radiating atomic system can theoretically be divided into a number of discrete ‘energy elements’ ε (epsilon) such that each of these energy elements is proportional to the frequency ν with which they each individually radiate energy..."

could better read

"... the 1900 quantum hypothesis by Max Planck that any energy radiating atomic system can theoretically be divided into a number of discrete ‘energy elements’ ε (epsilon) such that each of these energy elements radiate energy proportional to their frequency ν with which they each individually radiate energy ..."

But I'm not super sure if they mean the same thing? Rhetth (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sentence structure
The opening paragraphs of this article are very difficult to understand - not because of the complex subject matter, but because of the sentence structure. I may try to iron it out a little myself but I don't want to make any similar mistakes (?) to Rhetth by changing the meaning. Also, the article seems riddled with poor punctuation. It's my understanding that WP uses the symbols " and ' rather than “ ” ″ ‘ ’ or ′. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Timeline
I feel that too much of the Timeline section of this article contains material that is only very loosely tied to the development of quantum mechanics. Even considered as prehistory, much of this material only had a tangential impact on the history of quantum mechanics, and being overly inclusive only serves to obfuscate the major discoveries that led to its rapid development during the first half of the 20th century and beyond. Does anyone else feel this way? &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree entirely. There is way too much material in this section that has little to do with quantum mechanics. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's really a timeline of physical chemistry, and could used to create such an article, along with updating timeline of particle physics. Check out timelines. --Michael C. Price talk 03:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree about the timeline. Why is the discovery of the compass included in the timeline of quantum mechanics? The timeline is much too long as well. As Michael has said, this would be more relevant to the history of physical chemistry. I suggest removing all events pre 1800, maybe even later. I would rather the timeline started with Planck, but that's up for debate.
 * Would anyone have a problem with these removals and then all other events irrelevant to quantum mechanics:
 * CERN scientists publish experimental results in which they claim to have observed indirect evidence of the existence of a quark-gluon plasma, which they call a "new state of matter."
 * This is particle physics! Superdan006 (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No objection, provided the new timeline article is created, and existing timelines updated. I wouldn't want to see the data lost. --Michael C. Price talk 05:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see particle physics as part of physical chemistry. I agree about not losing this material. meanwhile an ediitor is piling in more and more items to the timeline and not engaging here. I'll leave him a message. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  06:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed about particle physics, which we mentioned above. So we all seem in agreement. --Michael C. Price talk 09:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be three pre-existing time articles that already cover this material. I've listed them at the article.--Michael C. Price talk 10:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your insightful comments. I agree completely. And thank you for preserving my data :) Essentially, the timeline I was proposing demonstrated the intellectual development of the ideas necessary for a quantum mechanical understanding of the world, but you are right -- I suppose I have gone too far afield.  Please do whatever you feel is necessary. Lottamiata (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Per above, I've moved pre-1900 entries below. If any entries are deemed to be relevant QM pre-history, they can be easily restored from what's below. &mdash; Myasuda (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have started copying many of these entries into Timeline of electromagnetism and classical optics. Remarkably, very few were already in the timeline, so they are a significant enhancement! Some could also be added to Timeline of classical mechanics . RockMagnetist (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Timeline: Original research
The timeline has the look of original research, with almost all of the references being primary (carried to an absurd extreme in the entry for Edward Raymond Andrew). It needs references from secondary sources. RockMagnetist (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the timeline to its own article. It was too large to be a table inside another article. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the entries in the timeline are long for a timeline but would make nice additions to this history. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"Heisenberg formulated his uncertainty principle in 1927, and the Copenhagen interpretation started to take shape at about the same time."
Before this statement, the article is good at briefly explaining the nature of things before or around introducing terms for the things. Why he had to, briefly? Did the Copenhagen interpretation depend on this principle, and if it did, then how? If it did not, then the concepts should probably be separated in the text of the article. Thank you. - 89.110.8.145 (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Overview - Bohr's reluctance
In the second paragraph of the Overview section it reads: "In 1900, the German physicist Max Planck reluctantly introduced the idea that energy is quantized in order to derive a formula [...]" Planck didn't introduce the idea that energy actually was quantized (reluctantly or otherwise). He regarded this as a mathematical trick that happened to lead to a solution of the problem of black body radiation. The idea that energy actually was quantized didn't surface until several years later. Jorgeditor (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagreement
It would be nice with a fuller account of the "debates" about how QM should be formulated in the period 1923-25. The Copenhageners were pretty much disposing of de Broglie as a crank (perhaps rightly so, he had been more than stubborn about a failed idea's validity in related areas (spectroscopy)), The Copenhageners did not like the thought of differential equations governing QM. One of very few taking de Broglie's ideas about particle waves seriously was Einstein. Another one was Schrödinger, who had had similar ideas published already 1921. I've just now learnt this from an entertaining article, Why was it Schrödinger who developed de Broglie's ideas in Historical studies in the physical sciences (can be found in JSTOR). YohanN7 (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

More random history articles
I stumbled upon Bohr–Sommerfeld model and Old quantum theory. Wonder if there are more.... Johnjbarton (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * yes: Heisenberg's entryway to matrix mechanics Johnjbarton (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * what are you looking for? There is actually a Template:History of physics.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry I was just remarking that this article, which purports to be "History of Quantum Mechanics" is really just another "history". By merging or at least wikilinking the other histories readers should be given a more comprehensive view. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also what is the "older quantum theory" there is the old quantum theory and the modern quantum mechanics, is this name referring to before Bohr's atom?--ReyHahn (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The term coined I believe by Whittaker is "...the Older quantum theory" in the titles for his chapters in V2. This comes out as "Old quantum theory" some places. Feel free to change it if you like, not a big deal. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Better history in Introduction to q.m.
Introduction to quantum mechanics calls this the Main article on history. But it has more complete information. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I have merged the Planck, photoelectric effect, and Bohr atom sections from the Introduction to quantum mechanics into this article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I merged the remaining core history into this article. Still a lot of clean up is needed.
 * the intro is overgrown,
 * many citations missing
 * missing connections to Bohr-Sommerfeld model
 * Dirac is lonely at the end
 * QED, Willis Lamb not mentioned.
 * Particle physics.
 * Quantum computing.
 * (These were all issues in the original articles as well). Johnjbarton (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is the discussion on this merge? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a good a place as any, or you can open a new topic on this Talk page. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I opened a new section below entitled "Merge discussion" ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm marking this resolved according the topic title: the History here is now better than the Introduction. However this History needs work and the Introduction is not resolved.
 * Johnjbarton (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)