Talk:Particle in a box

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Particle in a box article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Physics B‑class 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Particle in a box was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 16, 2006, reviewed version). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Comments

User Papa November asked for so comments and feedback.

My primary observation is that this article focuses why to much on explaining how to solve the particle-in-a-box problem in quantum mechanics. Please bear in mind that wikipedia is not a textbooks or a how to guide. As it stands the article reads like a couple of pages from an undergrad physics textbook, not an encyclopedia article. To make the article more encyclopedic I suggest:

Less focus on derivation, just state the result with a proper reference to a derivation. Most importantly, less math more prose. You may want to take some space and just explain in plain English what the main ingredients of the solution are. Remember that many of the potential readers of this article don't 'speak' mathematics, so write in English. In any case the solution should probably precide the derivation.
The properties of the solution could use some more attention on the other hand. Discrete energy levels and nonzero energy groundstate, are typical for quantum systems. It might be worthwhile to elaborate on that a little. It is important to convey how this problem and its solution related to other problems and the real world.
There should be a small history section discussion the who's and when's. Who first proposed the problem, and why? Who first solved it? Did proposing/solving the problem lead to any particular new insights in the development of quantum mechanics?
You might want to discuss the role of this problem in the didactics of quantum mechanics. It is one of the first QM problems undergrads learn to solve. This article should 1) mention this. 2)explain why.
The article should discuss what kind of practical system can be approximated by this model. What are the applications of this model.

Finally, a word of general advice when writting physics articles. Try not to think too much like a physicist, but try to view the text from the perspective of a layman. (TimothyRias (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'd prefer more citation and referencing, particularly of the first two introduction paragraphs. I suspect that the reason this article currently reads, quoth Timothy Rias, "like a couple of pages from an undergrad physics textbook", is because much of it has been reproduced from just such a source. I googled a phrase from the intro ("also known as the infinite potential well or the infinite square well") and came up with a number of search results including a page that seemed to be an exam study guide.

My advice is: re-write in an encyclopaedic style and be bold enough to try using your own phrases (instead of just swapping around a word here and there). I appreciate a number of edits have recently gone into this piece but I am a great fan of developing Wikipedia content that has been independently well written as well as prolifically written. A lot of images are cleaned out of Wikipedia, with copy-right cited as reason, and I believe Wikipedians need to be as demanding of their text as they are of pictures in this respect. In short:

Think about writing Wikipedia content that speaks with flair and originality as well as with an encyclopaedic voice.
If you are afraid others will question content that you wrote yourself, just be sure to reference it well and cite all of the facts. If someone with more knowledge about the subject, or a sharp eye, reads the article they can easily spot and check or fix a fact that way.
Think about including sections that might discuss a history of the theory behind the model, or how the model was developed. Has anyone famously discussed the model or based other work on the model? If they have, include this - it is informative and interesting and you can write great readable content based entirely on facts this way.
Think about including a section that might demonstrate how the model has been applied: give physics a purpose.
Has any particularly interesting, unusual or notable work in science ever made use of the model? If it has, think about creating either a sub-section or a link to a relevant existing article (or create a whole new article about it!).
Above all, remember that quality demands bravery as well as accuracy.

I hope I haven't been too harsh a critic.