Talk:Particle in a box: Difference between revisions
imported>Pieter Kuiper |
imported>Russ McGinn (acronyms) |
||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:::Excellent. I made the animation that I was thinking of, and I put it in below your image, but that is probably not the best place. Of course one should write an explanation, but I do not have the time now. /[[User:Pieter Kuiper|Pieter Kuiper]] 17:36, 23 October 2007 (CDT) | :::Excellent. I made the animation that I was thinking of, and I put it in below your image, but that is probably not the best place. Of course one should write an explanation, but I do not have the time now. /[[User:Pieter Kuiper|Pieter Kuiper]] 17:36, 23 October 2007 (CDT) | ||
Not sure what the 'accessibility' test is for maths articles so I apologise if the following comments seem ridiculously simple and silly - I did A-level pure and applied maths 20 odd years ago, but that's when I said goodbye to calculus and 'hard sums'. There's a few instances of acronyms that aren't explained or linked to which I found made the article presuppose quite a bit of knowledge, nothing too testing - I put (1D) in brackers after one-dimensional to aid reading for non-mathematicians such as myself. Is an ODE some kind of differential equation? perhaps we could spell it out in the first instance and contract it for later instances? --[[User:Russ McGinn|Russ McGinn]] 17:44, 23 October 2007 (CDT) |
Revision as of 16:44, 23 October 2007
Do we need the 3D case?
I think this page is starting to approach complete, besides the currently empty sections on the 3D spherical and cubic wells. I believe that the cubic will isn't really needed, but what are people's thoughts on the spherical well? It is definitely important but perhaps a separate page for it would serve to keep this page simpler, as well as making it nearly done.
Michael Underwood 20:50, 4 July 2007 (CDT)
- The simplest 3D case is a cube, which is worth treating here. The ball case is an exercise in spherical coordinates, maybe better suited for a different article. What I would like to do here is to make an animation of the probability density of a simple non-stationary state. /Pieter Kuiper 04:13, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
- I agree, I was getting ready to move the spherical well to its own page anyway and have now done so. Michael Underwood 14:31, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
- Excellent. I made the animation that I was thinking of, and I put it in below your image, but that is probably not the best place. Of course one should write an explanation, but I do not have the time now. /Pieter Kuiper 17:36, 23 October 2007 (CDT)
Not sure what the 'accessibility' test is for maths articles so I apologise if the following comments seem ridiculously simple and silly - I did A-level pure and applied maths 20 odd years ago, but that's when I said goodbye to calculus and 'hard sums'. There's a few instances of acronyms that aren't explained or linked to which I found made the article presuppose quite a bit of knowledge, nothing too testing - I put (1D) in brackers after one-dimensional to aid reading for non-mathematicians such as myself. Is an ODE some kind of differential equation? perhaps we could spell it out in the first instance and contract it for later instances? --Russ McGinn 17:44, 23 October 2007 (CDT)