Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Basics of quantum mechanics

Basics of quantum mechanics
Partial Self-nomination. This article is professionally designed and illustrated. It is written in a manner consistent with current scientific data that can be understood by readers of prominent encyclopedia such as Encyclopedia Britannica. It does not pretend to be for the scientific community alone and one does not need to be a physicist nor mathematician to understand it. It is well-rounded, presents all main features of its topic, and has had the eye of the physics Wikiers constantly upon its development and construction. preceding comment unsigned by Voyajer (Mikkerpikker 17:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Oppose, this is certainly a good article & can be brought up to FA level with a bit of work but I don't think it is there yet:
 * No inline citations, no reference section. Please see 2c at WP:WIAFA and WP:V
 * Actually, there is one inline citation and one reference. AndyZ 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object to opposition, there are two references added, however, as the article should not be too long, I do not want to add the nearly 100 references actually used in the article. Certain references are imbedded in the article itself by external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Voyajer (talk • contribs)
 * Two of the essential principles this encyclopedia is founded on is Verifiability &amp; Neutral point of view. There is no choice but to reference and cite source. Not referecing something that is used not only does not fulfil verifiability, it's also Plagiarism. -- KTC 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You must be joking. I've been a researcher in a Research and Development Laboratory for over ten years. I'm a published writer of scientific papers in scientific journals.  I understand plagiarism and it is "a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work".  My reading and studying physics for over twenty years, my reading and studying quantum mechanics textbooks and dozens of journals on the subject, and THEN writing an article in my own words about everything I have read is not plagiarism.  I cannot take each sentence from the article and give you a page in a scientific journal that I copied the sentence from, because I did not do so.  Instead, I could give a dozen references that amount to saying the same thing for every sentence and every word I've written, however, nothing is a direct copy.  I have given four references including one textbook that I've read in the compilation of the article aside from the one cited in the note and besides the three embedded as external links in the article.  There are dozens of quoted references as well on the "discussion" talk page of the article because we were so very careful in writing the article that we would dispute the use of a single word such as "disturb".  This is because each word, each sentence, each idea, had to be scientifically accurate. Yet, to cite each reference in the article would unduly overload the site.--Voyajer 22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I never intended to suggest you copy work and presented as your own, nor have I ever question whether you know what you're writing. If everything is written from your head, then the article need some references that confirm what you're writing. Quoted references in "dicussion" isn't any good for the casual reader who only read the article page. From your mentioned background, you will know that if you used a source as help in writing the article, then it need to be mention somewhere. I'm not saying mentioning every book / papers on the subject you've (or any other editor) ever read, but those that were used directly during writing of the article. -- KTC 00:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So extensive quotation from external sources without identification or direct reference (as in the Celine Dion article you put a "support" note on) is OK, but failing to meet footnoting standards on generally reported scientific information justifies a charge of plagiarism? That's just loony. Monicasdude 21:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith! Enough said. -- KTC 22:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I assumed good faith and quickly reached the conclusion that your comment was irrational, which is just what I said. And nobody who dropped a charge of plagiarism as lightly as you should hector anyone about assumption of good faith. Monicasdude 03:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My comment was "Not referecing something that is used not only does not fulfil verifiability, it's also Plagiarism.", and not "you have done that". If you have a problem understanding the difference, that's not my problem. -- KTC 04:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The 'Background' section needs to be expanded fairly extensively (perhaps merged with 'early discoveries'??) -- Mikkerpikker 18:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object to opposition Background is now merged with 'early discoveries'. However, this does not improve the article. It doesn't change anything really.  The explanation was already there.  But per suggestion has been merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Voyajer (talk • contribs)


 * Oppose in addition to what Mikkerpikker says the lead is too short WhiteNight T 21:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object to opposition. Lead was never too short. The whole article is one enormouse lead-in to modern quantum mechanics.  The entire article is a slowly building step-by-step logical orderly proceeding from simple ideas to complex ones.  However, the background info now includes the early discoveries which are background.--Voyajer 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:LEAD - this probably should have a lead of at least two paragraphs, maybe three. WhiteNight T 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as per Mikkerpikker. -- KTC 22:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please also note I have listed the spectrum image for deletion for being Education license. (I don't see it justify FU either.) -- KTC 22:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object to opposition due to spectrum image. Image has been removed, however, it does appear in several other Wikipedia articles.--Voyajer 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Although it is ground for opposition, that wasn't why I voted oppose. It was purely a note to say that I listed it for deletion. -- KTC 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object There is a single inline citation and reference, and a reference section is not necessary for FA status as long as the references are stated; in this case the reference. However, 1 inline citation and reference is certainly not enough for FA status. The quote is unreferenced, as are many other numbers such as the value of h I believe. Certainly, this article is composed for sub-articles... please use, , or appropriately. At 49 kb, it could benefit from Summary style. It needs to be of appropriate length. AndyZ 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It actually does provide the value of h in the article, and also linked to our article on Plank constant which provides more details. Only problem is, the value it provided doesn't match the one in our article for the constant. (I've changed it now) Haven't check about the other constant used in the article. -- KTC 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object to opposition against length of article. We are covering an entire field of science, an incredibly involved and complicated field of science in this article and we do so covering all salient points within 49 kb.  This achievement is an incredible accomplishment.  I doubt any other more thorough coverage of an entire field of science has been done in so concise and clear a manner as is presented in this article.--Voyajer 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the length is too large, considering some of the other FAs, but I'm saying that this article should be appropriately divided into daughter/sub pages to maintain the article size. AndyZ 00:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object to opposition to Planck's constant. Just as the calculation for pi of 3.14 is accurate and so is 3.1415  accurate for pi, because you can calculate pi to so many digits of accuracy so is Planck's constant accurate whether one uses so many digits after the decimal place or not.--Voyajer 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He said the values of constant was unreferenced, not that it wasn't precise enough, and I've already provided a correction to the statement. I said it wasn't agreeing with our entry on Planck's constant, because it wasn't. If one is going to list a value to a certain precision (number of decimal places), one better make sure it's accurate to that many decimal places, especially if we also have and linked to an article on the constant. 6.62618 is not the same as 6.62607. -- KTC 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note, this is one perfect example of why our work need to be verifiable and citing source. It is verifiability and citing source that allows error just as this to be caught. -- KTC 16:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A google search shows 177 articles referencing Planck's constant as 6.62618 x 10^-34 and 88 referencing Planck's constant as 6.62607 x 10^34. Referencing would not make any difference with constants which are always being refined.  The alteration by KTC was appropriate, not because the original was unreferenced, but because the original number although used more frequently is not the latest calculation.  The calculation changes every four years.  Every constant evolves, usually, with more and more precision.--Voyajer 16:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Planck's constant rightly reference and cite CODATA's value. Having the reference allows updates if / when it does get change. Values change when experiment with more precision comes up with a better value, not calculation for it. If you're worry about the small changes every few year (it's less common than that for any one particular value), use less accuracy. No one say you need to provide the best possible accuracy available in this article, especially when you're only discussing rough value. -- KTC 17:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This looks like a fork. What's the rationale behind having this article and quantum mechanics? Tuf-Kat 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object to comment that article is a fork. Quantum mechanics article is fundamentally different from this article.  It introduces quantum mechanical ideas, but in no orderly fashion.  It randomly introduces the scientific language of quantum mechanics with explicit assumption that the reader can understand both the math and the expressions of quantum mechanics.  Basics of quantum mechanics rather than giving an overview of Quantum Mechanics as in the original article is written as a perspective of the development of quantum mechanics giving the basic principles as they arose historically and develops each point rather than from a non-mathematical viewpoint, from a conceptual viewpoint.  It could be entitled Conceptualization of quantum mechanics, but that might not convey the meaning.  The title was chosen after consideration of many titles.  It is very different from the other article on Quantum Mechanics in its conception, visualization, sequence, readability, treatment and clarity.  The article entitled merely Quantum Mechanics sits one deeply inside quantum mechanics in a random manner which requires prior knowledge of the subject, and the other article discusses applications, philosophy, and interactions with other sciences'.  The article Basics of quantum mechanics does none of these things.  Instead it takes the average reader and informs in a logical progression through the development of the theory, clearly explaining each aspect and does not involve itself in the philosophy, application or interactions with other theories.  In the end, the Basics of quantum mechanics is a completely different treatment unrelated to the other article called Quantum Mechanics.  It is well-developed, accurate and readable.  It is as short as any article of its kind can be without being incomplete. It was a monumental effort and reflects the work and attention to detail that went into its making.--Voyajer 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't need to say object to everything. This was a comment and question by Tuf-Kat. Just provide an explanation or justification and it will suffice. -- KTC 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it need to be renamed to that like Special relativity for beginners to make it clearer. The intention of the article is that it is a beginner (non-scientist) article. It's intended to be for different audience to the other article (one that's can get deep and technical), due to the nature of difficulty of what it's describing, and the length of any article that would be if it tries to do both job at once (nevermind how annonying it would be for everyone who either don't understand, or don't want to read half of the article). -- KTC 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article? It is not quantum mechanics for beginners. Rather it is quantum mechanics for the college-educated adult who is possibly an accountant, medical practitioner, architect, or politician and wants to know exactly what quantum mechanics is.  Going to the main article on Quantum Mechanics one reads under 'Interactions with other scientific theories', "The fundamental rules of quantum mechanics are very broad. They state that the state space of a system is a Hilbert space and the observables are Hermitian operators acting on that space, but do not tell us which Hilbert space or which operators." This is going to tell the average college-educated reader nothing.  It is only going to be understood by specialists in mathematics and physics.  Basics of quantum mechanics takes the college-educated reader step-by-step through its development with particular emphasis in explaining the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics.  It does not talk down to the reader but assumes a basic knowledge of algebra and geometry and elementary physics.  It also enables physicists to come to a better understanding of their own field.  One Quantum Field Physicist who was in discussion concerning the nature of quantum mechanics in the article was concerned about origins of certain principles and the correct explanation of these principles.  This article provides that.  Physics in the university is often a discussion of arriving at the correct mathematical calculation rather than the principle it was built upon.  This article provides for the physicist too, in that it clarifies the underlying concepts of quantum theory.  I tried to post the article on the "Simple English Wikipedia".  It was erased.  The explanation was that it was not simple nor for beginners, but could not be understood by teenagers.  This in itself is proof that it is not for beginners, but is an article for adults in other fields interested in information on quantum mechanics, and it is for students of physics trying to grasp fundamental principles, and it is for physicists who wish to more firmly understand the underlying concepts of the theory. --Voyajer 16:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "it is quantum mechanics for the college-educated adult who is possibly ...... is an article for adults in other fields interested in information on quantum mechanics ....."That would qualify as one of my definition for beginner. Someone who is not in the field."Physics in the university is often a discussion of arriving at the correct mathematical calculation rather than the principle it was built upon."Any students would do better to choose a different university."It does not talk down to the reader but assumes a basic knowledge of algebra and geometry and elementary physics. ..... The explanation was that it was not simple nor for beginners, but could not be understood by teenagers. This in itself is proof that it is not for beginners ....... and it is for students of physics trying to grasp fundamental principles ....."Just because it's for beginner in QM doesn't mean it can't assume some other knowledge. We're not writing a popular science book that aims to sell to 5 years old. -- KTC 17:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You appear to have missed my sentence: "This article provides for the physicist too, in that it clarifies the underlying concepts of quantum theory." Perhaps you haven't majored in science and don't realize the pedagogy of the typical textbook in the typical university. It frequently happens that one can pass the tests exceedingly well, but one cannot apply the concepts. This article reveals concepts that can be hidden from the physics student at any university no matter how highly acclaimed and even concepts that have not been considered by a physicist working in the field, because it deals with the evolution of quantum theoretical concepts.--Voyajer 22:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right that I haven't majored in science at uni, that's because I'm in science at uni right now, so I'm actually in the perfect position to judge what the typical textbook is like. My personal opinion is, if the exams by university level can't seperate those truely understand and able to apply the concepts, compare to those who only remember a few facts and equations, then the university haven't done a very good job (or even a remotely acceptable one). If what you're saying is true, why the hell are uni and professional bodies taking into account UG transcript when deciding on PG placement / sponsorship. They would do the job by just putting all the applicants with above certain grades into a random lottery. -- KTC 00:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Now this is an entirely different subject and a "pet peeve" with me as I also tutor students to pass the GRE. It is well-established that testing methods themselves are geared toward people good at taking tests.  However, this has been a point of contention in the school systems for over thirty years with no real way to resolve it.  As a result, from personal experience and research, I know that there are veteran accountants who don't understand GAAP, I know that there are veteran IT professionals who don't understand how a microchip works, what CMOS is, or how Windows was created, and I know that there are scientists who do not understand from where the knowledge they possess was derived. I know because I've worked with them for over a decade.  That is a main reason for this article.  It describes the main principles of quantum mechanics and their derivation.--Voyajer 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. This is a fork of a valid article, and may therefore be more appropriate for a Wikibook on quantum mechanics than an encyclopedia article.  If quantum mechanics is not a good article, then it should be fixed; if subarticles are needed, they should be based on topics and not readership. Tuf-Kat 16:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * These two articles are fundamentally different. The approach is different.  They cannot possibly be merged and they cannot possibly replace one another. The contents for "Quantum Mechanics" goes:
 * Contents [hide]
 * 1 Introduction
 * 2 Description of the theory
 * 2.1 Quantum mechanical effects
 * 2.2 Mathematical formulation
 * 2.3 Interactions with other scientific theories
 * 3 Applications of quantum theory
 * 4 Philosophical consequences
 * The present article "Basics of quantum mechanics" goes from Background to Old quantum theory to Modern Quantum Mechanics with particular attention to the basic principles of quantum mechanics. Therefore, one article is about "effects", "math", "interactions", "applications", and "philosophy". And the present article is about "basic quantum mechanical principles, concepts, and foundations". These are TWO different subjects.--Voyajer 16:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The article basics of quantum mechanics does not present itself as you describe it. The lead to this article needs to explain what topic is being discussed, and how that is separate from the broad field of quantum mechanics. The dab block does not make sense if the distinction is as you describe it, since the main article on quantum mechanics apparently focuses on mathematical aspects. Perhaps this article ought to be at quantum mechanics and the article currently at that title ought to be mathematics of quantum mechanics or something. But then, as the TOC you gave demonstrates, quantum mechanics does not appear to be all about math, so the dab block may be incorrect. In any case, these two articles do not adequately distinguish themselves from each other. Tuf-Kat 17:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are right that the titles themselves are deceiving. However, it would be difficult to call one: "Quantum Mechanics, its effects, mathematics, interactions, applications and philosophy" and, then, call the other one: "Basic principles of Quantum Mechanics" or "Quantum Mechanics, its principles, concepts and foundations". The article presented here is a presentation of what Quantum Mechanics is composed of, its tenets so-to-speak, its rules, its concepts, its principles, its precepts.  The other article, "Quantum Mechanics" is concerned with what quantum mechanics does, its applications, its relation to other science, its philosophy. A change of title is not the question. Neither is the "dab block" as that is simple to change depending on how intricate and precise one wants to be about the fundamental differences.  This discussion has not centered on the one point in question:  What are the merits of the article?  The article is fundamentally sound.  It is well-presented.  It is everything one could wish from an encyclopedia article: a precise, accurate, complete, concise description of the matter under discussion.--Voyajer 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Difficult as it may be, both articles need a clear subject area-based focus. What's there looks nice, but I can't support this article as is. Tuf-Kat 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your stance, however, there are difficulties in consensus, especially about article titles. The fact is that reading the two articles one after the other makes clear the fundamental difference of the articles and information gleaned from one cannot be derived from the other.  Would you think it were clearer if this article were named: "Quantum Mechanics, its Basic Principles" or "Basic Principles of Quantum Mechanics"? Obviously, this does not change your vote in the matter, but your opinion is appreciated.--Voyajer 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Basic principles of quantum mechanics (note the lowercase) would be fine with me. Tuf-Kat 16:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that such a title would set quite the right expectations. I am aiming at an article that does not jump into the middle of things with the attitude that either the readers don't need to know, or that maybe the readers need to know but WE know and if they don't know, heh, heh, heh, that's their problem.  To the extent possible, readers should  be able to go from what they have already experienced or can fairly easily arrange to experience (such as the two-slit experiment) to an understanding what what physicists think is going on, and why.  So the title should include the idea that the concepts used are given firm foundations (not sprung on the reader from on high), and that the reader is then taken from that point as far as one can go without getting involved in higher math. George Gamow wrote a book entitled One, Two, Three...Infinity, and that title suggested that he would start you at steps one, two, and three... and then maybe you could go beyond that point, the sky is the limit, but the means to get there might depend on you.  I thought of "The ABCs of Quantum Mechanics," and maybe that is still a good idea. We are not, after all, dealing only with "principles." To me, that sounds like Euclid's approach to geometry. P0M 07:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Based on what's said above, the article should have undergone the peer review process. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 06:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This article was debated on AfD 10-18-05, with the result of Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyajer (talk • contribs)
 * PR and AfD is two completely different thing. AfD discuss and decides whether an article should exist at all, while PR discuss how to improve it. -- KTC 17:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't need to constantly use the word object, Voyajer. Simply responding to someone's vote is enough to register your opposition. Object may be mistaken for a oppose by the closer of the nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 12:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please sign all any vote, comment or response with ~ . -- KTC 17:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I have been interested in the QM articles for some time now, having spent a great deal of time on another article (Philosophical_interpretation_of_classical_physics) because the opinions (sic) expressed there had an impact on other article I was involved in editing.  I spend weeks trying to get clear on what the original author was trying to say, and in the process I became somewhat familiar with many of the articles on physics and especially quantum mechanics.  I have a better background in physics than the average well-informed reader, having spent my first two years in university as a physics major at Stanford, but starting with the QM article I discovered a great number of these articles would be entirely over the head of anyone who had not completed a year or two of physics for physics majors. I have mentioned this observation in a couple of places, but I have never noticed much in the way of comment -- except to direct me to the article currently under discussion. When I first saw it, it was barely more than a stub. It is now an article that will give the general reader a helpful introduction to (not a superficial snow job on) quantum mechanics.  There may be some reason for the Quantum mechanics article to continue as it is. It would not be easy, I suspect, to shoe-horn its contents into the Basics of QM article. Nor would it be easy to put the accessible materials in Basics of QM among the paragraphs of dense mathematical formulations. Essentially either way the two articles would be merged there would be a great danger of having two threads alternating in their appearance through one article, i.e., an Easy, Hard, E, H, E, H ... structure. I think the standard for writing in an article of this type would be that it should be as clear as the writing of somebody like Brian Greene in his Fabric of the Cosmos, and entirely supported by proper citations.  The other physics articles I happen to have encountered do not reach that level of accessibility, but the Basics of quantum mechanics article seems to be very nearly up to the highest standard for this type of writing. P0M 21:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - A lot have been said and quite quite a few changes have also been made. It's too late for me to look at it now, but I'll have a look at it again tomorrow and think over the article to see whether all my (and others) still stand. KTC 00:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - - I've started back over the article, putting in footnotes and improving wording in some cases. Adding footnotes does not really add to the length of an article. (Wikipedia is not paper.) Also, it can be very useful for students to be directed to some of the original articles by people like de Broglie, Heisenberg, Bohr, et al., because they had the bandwidth to be a little more discursive and most of these scientists also wrote excellent English. The trouble for the person seeking a way into a subject may be that if they read something by, e.g., Heisenberg, they may be coming into the middle of a complicated "movie" and have no idea of the social and historical context for what is being said. A good article can make sure that all of the underpinning needed is actually there or at least accessible via links to other Wikipedia articles. P0M 17:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. Quantum mechanics is more accurately termed "a theory," not "a science"; the main article treats it that way, as should this one. Not simply a verbal slip in the intro, but similar comments elsewhere in the article. Monicasdude 03:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Style of Background section. The Background section seems polluted by too many names of scientists.  Their names appear first in the sentance before the phenomenon that they discovered, which detracts from the phenomenon.  The article should be less like a history of QM and more like an introduction to the Theory.  Names should be included but given less prominence.  Newton's theories should be moved from middle (what is the unlinked word "corpuscular" doing in a basics article anyway) to start of this section (they are after all the background to QM), and the first theories of QM phenomena contrasted to them. Muxxa 11:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)