Talk:Correspondence principle

Physics High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Science / Contemporary Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science
	Contemporary philosophy

Archives: Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Examples[edit]

I am still far from understanding Bohr's version, but are the examples given really examples of the correspondence principle? ReyHahn (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per our discussion under "How to continue" we are deleting the Examples. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to continue[edit]

The history section is fine now. But it is the following sections that bother me, what should we put there? How should we define the not-generalized principle? Are the examples useful? ReyHahn (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say more about which "following sections" and what bothers you?
I'm unclear on what you mean by "the not-generalized principle".
Examples:
- Since there is no one thing called the correspondence principle, a single section does not make sense. The example section are well written but what are they examples of? The two historic ones could go in the history section if we could find matching historical refs. The limit of large quantum numbers could go with the classical limit section. I would delete the one D example.

I would rename "Description and Modern analysis" to "Modern view", include some modern textbook discussion. This could be a place for the large q.n. example. Discussion should include h->0.

Does this help? Johnjbarton (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following sections I mean specifically "Description and modern analysis" and "examples". Do we need a description section?
That has been my question all along. What is the correspondence principle is we forget about Bohr?. Is it the classical limit? You seem to agree that we should not conflate the classical limit with the correspondence principle

For the examples part I would remove them. We could built them back from scratch from good sources and put them in the historical section.

I am proposing to remove the "Description and modern analysis" entirely. What is that about?--ReyHahn (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, can the the generalized correspondence principle section be a section of modern view?--ReyHahn (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I started. I'd like to add to the Modern view some content from textbooks. I'll make the other changes you suggested. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I left one dangling paragraph with a reference

Jaeger, Gregg (September 2014). "What in the (quantum) world is macroscopic?". American Journal of Physics. 82 (9): 896–905. Bibcode:2014AmJPh..82..896J. doi:10.1119/1.4878358.

At first I thought the ref was off topic but the articles it cites seem to suggest otherwise. I don't have access to the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made another round of changes, please review and decide where we are. I think the "generalized" is marginally notable but only because I've not personally encountered it. The ref here is from a book with a couple of articles by different authors discussing it, so it's not obviously below the bar. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized principle[edit]

I read through most of Post's paper that covered (among other things) the Generalized Correspondence principle. I summarized it and in so doing replaced most of the corresponding section.

The old content was unreferenced material classical limits; that is not what Post's Generalized principle is about. Rather it is about correspondences between new and old theories: that they will have common parts. It does overlap with classical limits, eg v<<c in relativity, but Post at least does not make a deal of this. The book that included Post's article had more articles using the Generalized principle (his students I guess). We might find more examples or more about the connection to classical limits. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Great work. I agree much more with the current article.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connection to Heisenberg "reinterpretation" paper and examples.[edit]

@ReyHahn Ok I found the source of the now-deleted Examples section as well as a connection to Heisenberg's paper ‘‘Quantum-theoretical re-interpretation of kinematic and mechanical relations,’’ Z. Phys. 33, 879–893 1925.

Fedak, William A., and Jeffrey J. Prentis. "Quantum jumps and classical harmonics." American Journal of Physics 70.3 (2002): 332-344.

Johnjbarton (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]