Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2020 May 8

= May 8 =

quantum resonance redirect to "Resonance (particle physics)" wp article?
Would it be proper to have a Redirect page for Quantum resonance to our Resonance (particle physics) wp article? X1\ (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure. The term currently seems to be mostly associated with a new form of medical quackery (e.g.).  Also, Magnetic resonance (quantum mechanics) is another candidate for redirect.  Until/unless there is an acceptable definition for "quantum resonance" it is probably best to leave it alone. 107.15.157.44 (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . . . How about Quantum resonance → Mumbo jumbo (phrase) — Preceding sarcastic comment added by 107.15.157.44 (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to forget Nuclear magnetic resonance, on which the proposed Nuclear magnetic resonance quantum computer is based. However, a Google Scholar search suggests that the term, as used in the scientific literature, simply means resonance (high excitation in response to a periodic stimulation) observed in a quantum system, basically a resonance of the system's wave function, which does not correspond to any of the suggested redirect targets. --Lambiam 08:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As if ordered, a new article by the title "Quantum resonances near absolute zero" has appeared in the newest issue of Science. I don't have access to the full text, but from the abstract it appears that this time it is about Resonance (particle physics). --Lambiam 21:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Qualitative research sampling methodology - sample size
Are there theoretical guidelines about sampling size and doing qualitative interview research? How many interviews is 'enough', or 'not enough' in terms of scientific validity? Is there a reason why 'two' interviews is invalid, given that there are always restrictions or limitations on time, communication methods, human resources? Thanks if you can point to academic references, rather than sharing personal opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A447:A6CD:1:35C9:7BCB:34:9F10 (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For something basic, 30 is enough. But I remember in my university statistics class, that for something largescale like telephone survey, there was a certain #, it was like around 660, that showed reaching that amount is reflective of large sample populations. I'll have to look for my notes or something, but perhaps someone here already knows what I'm talking about. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC).


 * From a quick search on the website of the APA, who I would consider an authoritative source: Sample size in factor analysis, Psychological Methods, Vol 4(1), Mar 1999, 84-99. If that doesn't answer your question completely, at the very least it points you toward a specific journal (APA's bimonthly publication, Psychological Methods) that will probably cover the topic in great depth.  I love this quote from the abstract: "A fundamental misconception about this issue is that the minimum sample size, or the minimum ratio of sample size to the number of variables, is invariant across studies."
 * If you have access to the full paper, you'll find that it's amazingly thorough in both its qualitative explanation, and in its description of the mathematical theory that backs their work; and their simulations to demonstrate and counter-demonstrate validity in several example cases. Once in a while, I am truly impressed by the work of our colleagues in the social-sciences...
 * Nimur (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * We have an article on Sample size determination. Generally the topic is part of "power analysis", but the Wikipedia article covering that is Power of a test. Jmchutchinson (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)