User talk:Mpatel/sandbox/Schrödinger equation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for User:Mpatel/sandbox/Schrödinger equation: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:


    • Write more on the Correspondence principle.
    • Include more citations and external links.

    [edit] Cleanup of article - ideas

    I propose the following proposals for cleaning up the article:

    • The Historical Background and Development section needs to be written as less of a 'derivation' (the 'derivation' can be included in a show/hide box, such as in Einstein field equations). There should be some context for introducing the equation, such as explaining puzzling atomic phenomena (e.g. spectral lines), Bohrian approaches, etc...
    I hope I can butt in here. I added the Historical Background and Development section and purposely constructed it as a derivation so that people could see that it wasn't deux ex machina, and instead get some idea of where it was coming from. I would be sorry to see this go. The later mathematical sections were needlessly far too heavy with jargon, IMO. --Michael C. Price talk 13:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    Hi. I appreciate the intent of that section; note that I haven't removed it, but just 'hidden it'; I think the 'derivation' would clutter up the section (also, we both know it's not technically a derivation). Too much maths at the start will put a reader off (especially if it's not rigorous). A brief description of what Schrodinger did (with the show/hide box containing the derivation) and why with a reference or two would be better, IMO. Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 07:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    'Hiding' it is OK with me, since it is still there. Of course the derivation is not rigorous -- but it is helpful in understanding the equation to see how S probably derived it. Good luck with the improvements. --Michael C. Price talk 10:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


    • The importance of the Schrodinger equation is mentioned at the start of the article, but then the applicablility is forgotten in the remainder of the article. There really should be a section on Applications.

    That's all I want to focus on for now! MP (talk•contribs) 20:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

    • The Scrodinger wave equation should be discussed straight after the historical background section, and then the mathematical formulation in terms of kets etc... should be given; at the moment, we have 'wave function version in history, then maths using kets etc. and then wave function version in detail' - things appear a wee bit disjointed at present. MP (talk•contribs) 21:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

    Hi again, watching the development of this rewrite I strongly urge you to cut and paste to the article proper. It's definitely an improvement on what is currently there. Any further tweaks can be done there. --Michael C. Price talk 14:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Too much maths

    The article seems to contain too much maths. Clearly, some of the material can be transported to other articles (or just deleted), especially if it confuses the reader or doesn't elucidate the point at hand. If technical derivations must be kept, then a show/hide box can be used, as in the historical section. Comments welcome. MP (talk•contribs) 12:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)