Talk:Schrödinger equation

Possible reassessment for Good article nomination

Does anyone think enough/a sufficient amount of content has been added since the last assessment in February 2008 to warrant a re-nomination of this article for Good Article status? HapHaxion (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree ! Its authors obviously wishes the readers to "get it" (in words, explaining each variable and also through good illustrations), I would say. They have managed to make a rather understandable article here. Especially compared to the complexity of the issue. That in itself ought to be awarded. I also guess it's comprehensive enough. Boeing720 (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's badly written. It uses notation for the sake of notation. For example, Dirac Notation <..|..>=1 is introduced at the beginning where to say length 1 is clearly enough. Any Hilbert space has a naturally defined length. No-one needs the ket-notation to understand the Schroedinger Equation. It is, consequently, repeatedly dropped in the article, and then, for the enlightenment of another author only, miraculously resurrected. That's inconsistent. Also, it uses alt_facts (meaning: dead wrong). The vector space of square integrable functions L2(C) is NOT a Hilbert space. L2(C)/(functions_with_support_on_a_null_set) is. If one talks about integrable, then one should specify the measure (here the Lebesque measure on IR). In addition, the whole discussion about unitary is a mess. The citation [11] which should illuminate the WLOG argument about a parametrization of unitaries does not mention parametrization, but only draws conclusions from the norm=1 requirement of states for quantum mechanical time-evolution. That the generator of a unitary one-parameter group can be an unbounded, densely defined, self-adjoint linear operator should be mentioned in order to make clear that all this is not so simple, but not explained in order not to threaten anybody's safe space. And referenced within WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LMSchmitt (talk • contribs) 21:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Completely disagree. Nowhere - at all - does the author actually explain Schrodinger's Equation! It dives immediately from a superficial explanation of the equation to then talking about Dirac's generalised formalism, including using unexpalined concepts such as Hilber Space, eigenvalues, and so forth.

This article is, to me, posturing; showing off a niche and hard earned knowledge, with scant attempt to keep to the Wikipedia spirit of offering explanations and insight to a wide readership. There needs to be:

1. More definitions of complex terms.

2. Less mixing of the various formalisms of quantum mechanics

3. A better text based explanations of the equation, and of what the wave function is. Knolan7799 (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Missing a simple definition

Maybe the definitions are too complicated for most people, since Schrödinger's epitaph (in the photo) is simpler and sufficed for that important purpose.

I think it's fine to keep the existing ones. Maybe the epitaph form goes in the intro. 2600:4041:5976:4400:79B1:6365:9ED7:4A70 (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This was me.. didn't realize I wasn't logged in Pablo Mayrgundter (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Wave Function is a vector

Is a wave function a vector?

"A wave function can be an eigenvector of an observable" 88.111.117.83 (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's a vector on a Hilbert space. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible typo under "Separation of variables" section.

I'm no expert so maybe I'm just confused, but under the section "Separation of variables", the first sentence after the equation, it says, "The operator on the right side depends only on time; the one on the left side depends only on space." but the left operator is i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} and the right operator contains the \nabla^2. Then, below the next equation, the next sentence says, "Substituting this expression for \Psi into the time dependent left hand side shows that...".

Am I confused? The two places seem to contradict each other. It seems to me the first sentence is wrong. It should read:

"The operator on the right side depends only on space; the one on the left side depends only on time."

That is to say, should the words "time" and "space" be swapped in that sentence?

(P.S. Due to my lack of experience editing wikis, if my observation is correct, could someone make that change other than me. I get this deep only once a decade or so, so it would be better for everyone if I just watch. Thanks.) BornRightTheFirstTime (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, but next time just take a chance. Give an edit-description and if you are not comfortable add a topic just like you did but post-fix: "Fixed possible typo..." for some one to check. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you and will do. See ya around 2033. :-) BornRightTheFirstTime (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Less not more math.

@EditingPencil Thanks for your recent edits. I want to encourage more qualitative physics and less math.

I think we should expect readers of this article to include interested first physics undergrads. For example, in my opinion the section on "Probability current" should be describing what the heck probability current is and why it is related to Schrodinger's equation. It should be a summary only; they should not be faced with a proof. There are lots of other articles for details, eg Probability current Johnjbarton (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Yeah, I agree. I have moved it. But I'm not sure if the bit about phase can stay or go. I don't mind either way so I'll let anyone here decide. EditingPencil (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)