Talk:Quantum number

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]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating 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.

It says 'there are three quantum numbers for the hydrogen-like atom', then lists four.

I tried to clean that up a bit. The reason is, that the analysis is simply wrong and produces only three. That is not an error in the article, but an error with the historical version of quantum mechanics at the time the analysis was done.

Can we have an explanation for why spherical symmetry of the Columb potential means the Hamiltonian must commute with J^2? fkjgflkfijkf;jvllfom;okl,poAdding to cleanup. -- The Anome 08:37, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How is it pathetic? It's a stub, not a full article. It's an important piece of physics and deserves a definition. I just don't have the time right now to write the 1,000 word article that could easily go here. dmmaus 08:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's what I'm suggesting. It needs the 1,000 word article! -- The Anome 08:47, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I'm still relatively new and didn't realise exactly what cleanup was. Now I know! :-) dmmaus 08:51, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This article is pretty confusing to the average kid who's just learning about quantum numbers...I came to this article to refresh myself on the 4 quantum numbers I learned in basic chemistry and saw a bunch of Greek and sub-particle stuff. I'm gonna add a beginner's guide to quantum numbers. EDIT: there are articles in the "External Links" which may give this information too but there should be a note somewhere in the article that refers to these. I will save the information I typed and whoever knows more about this than me can do with it what they want-- Bubbachuck 23:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This is an encylopedia article, not an introduction to quantum numbers geared towards a highschool chemistry student, which, for your information, I happen to be. -- Rmrfstar 22:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i'm not sure what you're getting at by telling me your a highschool chemistry student...are you saying that the article is too complex/not complex enough for you? i'm a junior in college and I've taken gen chem, organic chem, physics, etc. (i'm an engineer) and without sitting for half an hour, I can't understand this article. with no disrespect to the author(s) of the article in its present state, but it reads like a quantum physics or physical chemistry textbook, not an encyclopedia article. Take the opening definition, for example, "A quantum number is any one of a set of numbers used to specify the full quantum state of any system in quantum mechanics". I'm sure its in accurate definition, but not one that someone with a basic knowledge of chemistry or physics will understand (which in my opinion, they should be able to). Bubbachuck 20:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was that this article is not supposed to introduce, "the average kid who's just learning about quantum numbers", to the subject, but to provide encyclopedic information about quantum numbers, such as the correct definition. By stating my level of education, I was simply showing that from my perspective, one would want the article dumbed down, however, I do not. I do think however that the article should be expanded to include better alternative (not neccessarily simpler) definitions of what a quantum number is. It seems to me that you want a textbook, to introduce you to the subject, rather than an encyclopedia article, to describe the subject. -- Rmrfstar 21:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

your opinion is unwanted and unencyclopedia like.

Are we getting the signs right? In the 'Quantum numbers with spin-orbit interaction' section, it says, the state j=1/2, mj=-1/2, odd parity is coming from state (8) above, which has l=0, but then the parity should be (-1)^l=+1, thus even, no? -- Rafi from 134.107.4.116 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're correct Rafi, the even and odd were reversed. States coming from l = 1 have odd(-1) parity while states coming from l = 0 have even(+1) parity. p = (-1)^l etc. I have edited the article to correct this. --jeCi If "Bob" were a hamburger you couldn't finish the whole thing... (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)