Talk:Hartree-Fock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid importance within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

	Chemistry Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

Could someone acquanted in the field give a list of the original and also some of the convenient references in scientific literature on this subject? This can be found in the density functional theory page, for example, and such references make wikipedia really a good starting point for actual research. -- Mipmip 04:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamental physics concept

I had several discussions with colleagues on just what constitutes a fundamental physics concept. What we decided was that a fundamental physics concept was one that any physicist would need to be familiar with before embarking on a specialized experimental or theoretical track. By "familiar" we meant being able to solve problems at the end of the chapter on that topic. I am not sure, by this criterion, that "Fundamental physics concepts" should have been removed as a category, but maybe I am wrong. What is the opinion out there?Complexica 18:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Is not Category:Fundamental physics concepts being over used? which looks as if it is concluding exactly that. The Category is over used. Specifically on Hartree-Fock, I think the criteria you suggest, would lead it to be removed from this article. Hartree-Fock of course is, these days, used much more by chemists than physicists, but a physicist going down the track of theory of atoms would start with quantum mechanics. That would be the fundamental concept. Hartree-Fock is just an applied tool, he/she would learn as they went down the track. It is not a fundamental concept. It is just an important approximate method --Bduke 22:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)