Talk:Matter wave

"Part of a series of articles about Quantum mechanics"
A box on the right side of the page says: "Part of a series of articles about Quantum mechanics". And yet expanding each of the sub headings inside of the box never shows a link to matter wave. Is that intended? Johnjbarton (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Good thought. I posted on the relevant page, so let's wait for responses. If no or favorable response, consider editing the template. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

New section ready for review: Matter waves vs. electromagnetic waves (light)
A new section in my sandbox is ready for review: Matter waves vs. electromagnetic waves (light). More can be done but I think the content is useful as is. As throughout this is summary material for other pages (which themselves need work, some of which I have invested).

Please edit there or comment here and let me know what you think. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I put in some comments. While parts may be OK for atom optics, I know they are not for electron. I am not the best person to ask for those, but I could ask some of the real experts for some writing. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Great comments, I'll work on them. Thanks! Johnjbarton (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I finally got back and fixed up the draft. I made changes for each comment except the one on dispersion. The text already says 'vacuum' a couple of times so I left it as is, with a "?" for the response.
 * The change I made for coherence may not satisfy, but all I want to get across in this summary is 1) coherence is thing that applies to waves and thus to matter waves 2) it overlaps but does not equal optical coherence. And do this with references.
 * Please take another look and thanks again for the great review. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just back from travel, please give me a few days. Coherence with electron waves is a well researched topic, as it is critical to $N million electron microscopes. I will write something, plus get some input from friends who build microscopes. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I published this section with some small additions. I found an online P. Hawkes book with two pages on coherence and boiled it down two one sentence ;-) I've been looking for P. Hawkes Principles v3 but I guess I will need to visit a UC library to read it, but I think that level would go in an electron optics article anyway.
 * Johnjbarton (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I never got around to looking (I was buried with making Triboelectric effect sensible). It looks good, I am not going to tweak and make H. G. Wells roll over in his grave. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

de Broglie states his result
We had with a ref to his Nobel lecture but it was deleted by @Moriarty49 with an edit summary
 * "This is a fundamental relation of the theory."
 * This was vague, and had little to no context. If more could be provided, I think it would reinforce the article

What kind of context is missing? The section is de Broglie's hypothesis and here he announces, in his own words, the key result. How can it be vague? Johnjbarton (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Leibniz philosophy reference
The following content was added by @SpiralSource, removed by @William M. Connolley, then re-added. with a ref: While the sentence is true (by definition since QM is not "classical"), the reference is inappropriate. The Monads of Gottfried Leibniz may have inspired 20th century physicists but he died in 1761 and thus had no knowledge of De Broglie's work. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * De Broglie waves have no counterpart in classical physics.


 * Fortunately, the article was not written by Leibniz.  SpiralSource (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please be aware of WP:civil. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @SpiralSource the text you added is off topic for the article. If you disagree you can seek consensus, see WP:BRD. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @William M. Connolley perhaps you will concur on my objection to this addition. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree; the ref is clearly inappropriate; also, I have ventured to edit SS's comment of 10:32 to remove incivility William M. Connolley (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)