User talk:Johnjbarton

talk to me Johnjbarton (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The wave vector is really a vector ${\displaystyle \mathbf {k} }$, as is the group velocity. I suggest staying with this from the start of the article, rather than having wave number anywhere. There are cases where this matters a lot, for instance in periodic solids. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My goal here was trace through de Broglie's historical path but to connect to the (modern) group velocity page. A reader of the de Broglie approach would have some work to connect to the group velocity otherwise.

Using vector ${\displaystyle \mathbf {k} }$ here would, I believe, require additional explanation out of context for the historical story. I did add a qualifier "in free space" to the passage.

I understand the value of consistency but there is also value in starting with the simple homogenous case to give the basics, then generalizing.

To me the group velocity page is weak in not clearly calling out the general case and making the connection. Solids and anisotropic mediums are not mentioned. Similarly wavevector does not connect with crystal momentum. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on 'QM Non-interpretations talk'. If you are interested in matter waves, perhaps the following is your cup of tea: https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/17832/arthur-lunn-and-the-schr%c3%b6dinger-equation 176.93.119.196 (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]