Talk:Wave packet

Archives: Index 1

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

"Historical background" is for wave-particle duality, not the topic wave packet.

This article incorrectly equates "wave packet" with wave particle duality. The history section is especially egregious. It does not have a single reference about the history of wave packets. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum wavepacket history is covered in a short chapter:

Kragh, H. (2009). Wave Packet. In: Greenberger, D., Hentschel, K., Weinert, F. (eds) Compendium of Quantum Physics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70626-7_232

It could be the basis of a rewrite of the Historical background. Classical or optical wave packets are not discussed however. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I replaced the section. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100 117.18.228.234 (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article but

I really like the Shrödinger part where it is used as a way to show what a dispersive medium can do, but I would like to add that I don't know many particles obbeying the Shrodinger's equation. If you describe photons, you will use Maxwell's equation and quantize them as much as you can, if you look at electrons, you will deal with the Dirac equation. None of them exhibit that dispersive behavior (at least in vacuum). That dispersive behavior is a pathology of the model, it creates faster than light signals. Klinfran (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to revert edits related to "quadratic phase"

@Cosmia Nebula added content about quadratic phase but without references. This content cannot be verified. I would normally just revert such edits but later ones on Airy waves did have references. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it is not the first time this has happened. I had the exact same issue with recent edits in the wave equation article, which I addressed on her talk page. (I actually suggested the citer tool I found on your userpage, which is amazing)

Then (to a lesser degree) the same happend in the weyl algebra article, which I almost had to WP:TAGBOMB

To her credit, she somewhat improved the referencing afterwards and I do believe it is clearly a case of WP:GF as the mathematics is usually very solid. However, when she goes into "storytelling mode" the situation becomes more problematic; violating WP:NOR.

It feels like referencing is being treated as an afterthought rather than the basis of the edits. If WP:V and WP:NOR is not taken into consideration in future, then she shouldn't be surprised her edits will be reverted. Otherwise we'll keep having this discussion over and over again.

Kind regards, Roffaduft (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Animations

I'm trying to read this page but it has animations all over it. So while I try to focus there is always some distracting motion that draws my eye. It sucks. Jayarava (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]