Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:05, 1 April 2012

• Date: Sunday, December 29, 2024
• Time: 11:35 (UTC/GMT)

Should be able to answer within a couple of days unless I'm really busy or have no access to the internet at all (unlikley but it could happen...).

Hello, F=q(E+v^B)! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! DVdm (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Misplaced Pages • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Unsourced, errors

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Real and imaginary parts, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Misplaced Pages:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You also added a contradiction: "... the imaginary part is the real number multiplied by the imaginary unit. The imaginary part is just the real number - not including the imaginary unit". Please don't do that. I have reverted your edit and I suggest you first propose changes like this on the article's talk page. See wp:BRD. I did a similar thing with your edit on Lorentz transformation. - DVdm (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

DVdm: Thanks for the welcome, actually I have been on wikipedia for some time but no-one has noticed me (except one person I will not mention). Like I care anyway - I'll just edit, not look for credit (non-intensional ryhme). Please see the talk page of real and imaginary parts, and the lorentz transforms talk page. Thanks again, F=q(E+v^B) (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by F=q(E+v^B) (talk • contribs)

Lunatic sinebot

WHY THE FECK DOES THIS "AUTOSIGN SINEBOT" KEEP ACCUSING ME OF NOT SIGNING MY NAME "USING 4 TILDES"????? I DO THAT EVERY TIME ON A TALK PAGE.

F=q(E+v^B) (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)<---SEE???????????????

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

As said, I genuinley and actually do that, and already knew this..... I type four tildes ( ~~~~ ) and still the message comes up every now and then. Its really irritating. I knew that signing is done on talk/user etc pages from day 1 - its not like I didn't know until just now. I'll calm down. If its you, please stop it because I definitley sign posts in the way required.--F=q(E+v^B) (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I added the template to stop sinebot signing my "unsigned" comments. Thanks sinebot for at least providing the template. Btw yes I know sinebot is a bot, Slakr is the actual user.--F=q(E+v^B) (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)<---LOOK AT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sig suggestion

Why not display your sig a proper formula: — F = q(E + v × B)

Here's the code to put in your preferences. (Make sure to tick "Treat the above as wiki markup.")

<span class="texhtml">— ](])</span>

— Edokter (talk) — 18:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ehh... The formula is supposed to be:

${\displaystyle {\mathbf {F} }=q\left({\mathbf {E} }+{\mathbf {v} }\wedge {\mathbf {B} }\right)\rightleftharpoons {\mathbf {F} }=q\left({\mathbf {E} }+{\mathbf {v} }\times {\mathbf {B} }\right)}$

which is the electromagnetic (Lorentz) force on a charged partcle of charge q in a electric field E and magnetic field B travelling at velocity v. The wedge/circumflex ${\displaystyle \wedge }$/^ and times/cross/multiply (etc.) ${\displaystyle \times }$ symbols are used interchangabley for the vector cross product. I couldn't use the times symbol for the name. The wedge/circumflex is not supposed to be a power. Thanks for your suggestion though.

Furthermore thanks very much for your help on those templates! You and Nageh deserve pretty much most of the credit for creating those! --F=q(E+v^B) (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. I'm not a math person, but I do well in HTML :) I changed the code to match the formula. Glad you like the templates. — Edokter (talk) — 19:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, i'll make use of what you provided as well! I'm not brilliant at html myself, so I just sign using the button on the editor panel. Good to know you're good at what I am not!

Speaking of which, what do you mean by "tick: Treat the above as wiki markup"? I can't simply paste:

<span class="texhtml">— ](])</span>?

cheers again =) --F=q(E+v^B) (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Go to "My preferences" (link on top of page). There you can paste the code in the signature box, tick the wiki markup box and hit Save. After that, you still sign as usual with four tildes, but your signature will then show up as above. — Edokter (talk) — 21:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Splendid. Lets test it: --— F = q(E + v × B) 21:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)<--- IT WORKS - If only Lunatic Sinebot could see it!!!

I changed it to a different font-- F = q(E + v × B) 21:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a typical wiki formula anymore, but you're the boss. Note that Gill Sans is not a widespread font; Those that don't have it will see it in plain sans-serif. I made a page about fonts. — Edokter (talk) — 22:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, but still. I'll see your page soon.-- F = q(E + v × B) 22:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Your the lunatic

Please - for all Navboxes you produce, use the background colour #FFFFFF. Also LEAVE them opened so readers can see them, then shut them if they become too much, and so editors can spot errors quicker. Thank you --Maschen (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh? very well - btw I saw what you wrote on continuity equation, I don't care about attacks directed to me but you'd better not do it to anyine else. Keep your anger to yourself - its not that much of a problem (unless you make it one). On my computer I geuss the brightness/ contrast was so that I could't see the colours of the tops of the Navboxes so I thought they were plain. I realized they wern't afer by looking at the screen at an angle - there was only a slight differance.-- F = q(E + v × B) 12:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Physics equations navbox

For solving the links to disambiguation pages in templates, I stumbled yesterday on Template:Physics equations navbox and Template:Physics equations (eponyms). Both templates have a problom with the Landau–Lifshitz equation. Unfortunately, I have also an issue with that equation: I don't have a clue what they are about. Therefore, I plain do not know where the links in the templates should point. Could you please correct the links so that they point to the right article instead of a disambiguation page? Thanks in advance! Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically it is only the Template:Physics equations (eponyms) template which has the problem since this is passed into the Template:Physics equations navbox template. Sometimes there are a number of equations which are named after the same scientist/s, such as Euler and Ampere. I intentionally linked to the disambiguation page so that readers can choose which equation to read up. I'll split the link into the disambiguated articles.

I don't really understand the LL equations either (yet), but in case your interested here is what they mean. One L-L eqn is for non-linear acoustics: the description of noise generation via turbulent aerodynamics (similar to fluid flow in fluid mechanics). The other two are for the description of the magnetization field M in magnetism: one is for the solid state, the other is a general mathematical description. These are very intricate, advanced and applied equations which you don't need to worry about as much as (say) Maxwell's equations, the Schrödinger or Dirac equations, or De Broglie's relations etc. Thanks for letting me know.-- F = q(E + v × B) 19:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ehm, it is just Chinese for me. The last time I had classes in Physics was in 1984, in secondary school. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but at least the templates for those equations are sorted. Actually right now I am making the classification better.-- F = q(E + v × B) 21:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Great! As long as I don't see those templates in the "List of templates with disambiguation links" I will be happy. But I did not want to start changing in those templates because I had no clue what it was. Asking for help is then a better option! Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No problems! Thanks again for asking. The templates as far as I can make them are complete; about as organized as they can be (hopefully). There should be no disambiguation pages at all but if there are please tell me again. Cheers-- F = q(E + v × B) 22:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Contributed articles update

I took the liberty of updating the articles you contributed to a few minuites ago on your main page. Hope you don't mind - I should make it up to you for being rude the other time. Came across your recent edits when adding images for the vector model of the atom - which you expanded very well! Also you extensivley edited the template: equation box 1 so that it works clockwork. Thanks very much, --Maschen (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Equations of motion

Hi. Your recent elegant rewrite of this article goes too far imho. The previous version concentrated on the classic equations of motion which, for most people, is what they are seeking in this article. If you feel, and I don't disagree, that there is a need for mention of these more esoteric areas then I suggest you could achieve this better by pointing to other suitable articles. It seems to me that the article as you left it will be quite confusing for a reader simply seeking information on the "equations of motion". I will post something similar on the article's talk page. Abtract (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied at the talk page-- F = q(E + v × B) 11:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nick spelling

Hello!

Why is your nick is not user: F=q(E+v×B) or some other presentation without an unreadable ASCII substitute for ×? You have the possibility to rename yourself, leaving a redirect behind the user page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - replied at your talk page.-- F = q(E + v × B) 17:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thanks for cleaning up the physics pages!

Xuanji (talk) 08:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh? - didn't expect to see this upon a quick return to WP, I’ve been busy recently so I haven’t done much on WP lately. Though thanks a million for your appreciation! And no problem! =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 10:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at the Template:Physics operator you created and I think Template:Quantum optics operators should be merged into it, but I'm quite new and not sure how to go about proposing such a merge. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xuanji (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes - it should be merged. I hadn't seen that template before, so i'll do it soon. First i'll ask for the author's opinion. Thanks very much for pointing it out. =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 16:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

About proposing merges: In the case two parts of WP are very closley related and there is too much overlap, you can do the merge yourself provided you mention on the associated talk page/s, but its best to speak to the author (found in the edit history) of the page/template etc first before taking any further action. Otherwise you just do what you did then: make the proposal, and sit tight for others to reply.-- F = q(E + v × B) 17:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wavefunction query

Hello. I know its very late to ask now 4 years on - though I only joined wikipedia several months ago. Recently I have significantly edited the wavefunction article. When looking through the (extremley negative) talk history, I found this statement written by you:

"this page has no meaning because it doesnt give the formula for the wave function. The formula for the wave function grows to several pages long for any system containing more than a few particles. The problem is that it is a recursive simultanious equation. When one reaches the entanglement point it becomes nearly impossible to solve without the aid of computers simply because of the time it would take to write it down..."

I was wondering... what is this "formula for a wavefunction as a recursive simaltaneous (system of) equation(s)?" I thought wavefunctions are solved from wave equations (ex. Schrodinger, Dirac etc), but didn't think there was "a formula". I have yet to come across this, and have looked far and wide for it. Could you write down some of it (if its so long)? Please reply on my talk page when you can. Thanks. -- F = q(E + v × B) 14:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Howdy! Nope, 4 years isn't too much of a lag for a wikiogre like me. "this page has no meaning because it doesnt give the formula for the wave function." wasn't a part of my comment, it was an unsigned previous comment- I was attempting to clarify that the integral equations given in the article were as close as you can get to writing the formula down, given that there isn't actually a "X=..." type of formula for the wavefunctions, as the commenter after me mentions. I've tweaked the formating and added an "unsigned" author sig to that line (it was apparently posted before signbot made its debut) to make it a bit clearer that mine is a separate comment. I have to agree about the negativity of the comments on the talk section of that page, by the way. It amuses me how the strangest things get people ranting. Scorpion451 rant 14:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Right - I see what you mean, thank you! I'm sorry for mistaking the unsigned comment for yours. It makes perfect sense that there doesn't exist such a formula. I just became incredibly curious about what was said. =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 14:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Quantum optics operators

Hi there! Thanks for your note on my talk page. It's pretty cool to see newer Wikipedians like yourself take the initiative with improving these old templates. I think it would be OK to merge the templates together, but I wonder whether it might get too big to handle. Then again, we have Template:ProbDistributions which is highly useful. Might want to think of adding things like D'Alembert operator and Casimir operator to your new template. I'd be curious to see how your merging of the templates turns out, so please feel free to wikify as you see fit! --HappyCamper 04:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok - i'll do that. It shouldn't become too large to handle, there's hardly anything on the template I created. Anyway thanks for your permission! =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 11:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks good! Hopefully other Wikipedians will be able to build on it. But...Just a friendly reminder about redirecting templates, sometimes it is necessary to make edits like these since some templates work better if placed near the bottom of the page. --HappyCamper 07:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Splendid! Pleased to know you like them. I'll do what you mentioned next time. =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 21:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Lorentz Factor

— Fly by Night (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		Civility Award
		You handled that anonymous slam at Talk:Schrödinger equation gracefully. Don't let it get you down - I appreciate the effort you have put into the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That was a speed of light response, thanks for your appreciation! To think I received an award... =)-- F = q(E + v × B) 20:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 12:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Dirac equation article.

The article used to be clear that the Dirac equation was motivated to solve the Klein-Gordon equation, and that every solution to DE was a solution to the KG, but not vice versa. This was further illustrated by showing the KG and DE in Feynman slash notation along side each other. These statements no longer appear, and the associated Feynman slash equations have been deleted. -- cheers, Michael C. Price 10:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Equation aficianado

Hi, since you have professed being a fan of equations, I wondered if you had ever seen some of the usual physical equations expressed in geometric algebra. Rschwieb (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks, I have seen that fascinating article many times before yet still don't understand it very well (yet - will someday). I'm not at the same level as you and many other experienced editors are. =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 17:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a pure mathematician trying to learn the applications of algebra in physics. The main problem for me is that I don't have the physics/engineering background to absorb the applications very quickly. In my experience, pepole with physics/engineering background were able to quickly generate intuition for the equation without being stressed about (as I am) how it arose. When I talked with a physics friend, he got a little impatient with my foundational questions, because he couldn't answer them.

Geometric algebra seems like an ideal place for me to begin to get my head around both disciplines. There are three or four people at User:Rschwieb/GA_Discussion building a little learning community about it. Feel free to ask questions and see how well what's there helps the learning process. Rschwieb (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that’s interesting. =) I looked at the page and there are indeed experienced editors there. To be clear: its for understanding how GA fits in with physics, in addition to spinors, right? It’s a useful idea to create such a page; although I may not be much help/use on it, there are certainly questions I have to ask as you might see every now and then. -- F = q(E + v × B) 16:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I mainly like to use the subpage whenever I have a questions about how the "standard approach" and the GA approach differ. The standard approach seems so patchwork at times that I can't see the forest for the trees. I have very little feeling for how physicists think of reletavistic dynamics and electromagnetics, and I have no idea what a spinor is. Rschwieb (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, right now I'm busy with coursework, I can't respond much untill later (hopefully). I'll use the pinch of time I have right now to comment here.-- F = q(E + v × B) 14:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your contribution. Diverse viewpoints are going to help (me at least) the most. I hope you don't mind if I divide it up a little and sort it into the headers above. We all are pretty busy with real life, and have to steal moments to read (I'm teaching classes, in fact.) I'm curious what classes you will be attending. Rschwieb (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

By all means, please organize as you see fit. =)

Interesting to know you're a teacher/lecturer, and a researcher - wikipedia needs people who are teachers. I'm sure you've made plenty of productive contributions to the mathematics articles! There is another extremley well respected and high-quality editor who is a physics teacher and researcher also. You should also ask him for his inderstanding of GA in EM and GR, and spinors in QM and QFT. =)

(FYI modules this year I have are: QM, Nuclear physics, Solid state physics, Linear algebra, Multivariable + Vector calculus, Linear + Non-linear ODE's, pinch of PDE's, EM + pinch of physical optics, "Eigenphysics" (Linear algebra + Physics), Lagrangian + Hamiltonian mechanics, and Statistical physics...). -- F = q(E + v × B) 18:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Very cool (and very full) class schedule! I would be helpful for linear and vector algebra and calculus. I sure wish I could attend classes such as quantum, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics (but I'd probably need a refresher on classical mechanics.) Rschwieb (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

AMO

I noticed your recent interest in the AMO article. I made a suggestion on that talk page suggesting a merger, it would be good to hear your opinion. (something like this: User:IRWolfie-/Atomic,_Molecular_and_Optical_Physics, bearing in mind this is effectively an empty shell). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - replied at the talk page. Actually I didn't have that much interest, but it did need sources and still needs a lot of work. I'll help you wth souces if you like. =)-- F = q(E + v × B) 14:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you made some additions and added some references, can you switch to using the referencing style which I initially used for the article so as to keep the article consistent? Can you also add page numbers to the references you added so the text can be verified? Cheers. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, will do. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 06:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Original research

A Talk:HCPotter

I'm overwhelmed by your belated welcome, but I have noticed the giant ? that seems to beg a response. With regard to original research, I believe we know it when we see it. The Akers reference I added to the Dirac equation page is such. It presents observed measurements from experimental condition manipulation. My paper is analogous to a Misplaced Pages page. I use it as a reference to provide interested readers with added background for my edits.

P.S. Isn't it time to clear the Dirac equation talk page? Its memory limit seems to have been reached.(HCPotter (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC))

What do you mean by "giant"?

• Extra large font.(HCPotter (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC))

Anyway - you say your paper is analogous to a wikipedia article, and the Akers reference is OR? The Akers citation seems to be more like a secondary source to me, while you citing your own paper is OR, because it’s your own work - which is why DVdm deleted it. Maybe you could link it in the External links section, which allows the reader access to view the document, but this can still be considered OR.

• The citation is secondary, but the research is original.(HCPotter (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC))

Talk pages are never "cleared" if you mean to erase everything on it like a black/whiteboard, only to fill it in again. They are archived on the other hand in bunches of dead (inactive/terminated) discussions, which is your point right? You have a point, I'll see that this can be done up to the section Two kinds of Dirac field.

• My point, exactly. It has been done.(HCPotter (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC))

Is this reasonable? =) F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 14:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Spinors

I thought this edit summary was very unreasonable on yourself. I personally found what you wrote an interesting reminder, and something worth going back to and thinking about again. But I haven't contributed to the page much recently, because there are various other projects that have been taking up almost all my spare attention recently, so I haven't had the spare focus needed to really immerse myself in the right place to get to grips with spinors. Your pictures looked fab though -- good diagrams are so important, and so often so underprovided here, and take a significant amount of effort to create, so you deserved significantly more kudos for those than you got. (Even if I still haven't quite made the leap to see what it is about spinors that would a-priori lead you to them as what you would expect to need to describe such situations... I am sure the answers are out there, and probably well known, but I haven't put in the spadework needed to really feel it connects all together for me yet). So, very many thanks for those!

I also saw you had a look at Matrix mechanics recently. Beware, I have serious reservations about that article, because I suspect it has only the most tenuous relation to what actually was the path Heisenberg went along in the 1920s. Again, it's something I have a file of photocopying on, intending to get back to, but haven't yet been able to crunch properly to do it proper justice yet.

Enough about me though. I just wanted to say thank you for your contributions, and to apologise if -- for entirely unrelated reasons -- it might have appeared that they were falling on stony ground. Jheald (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! This is exactly the sort of thing I wanted to see: it's useful for learners (like me) to stimulate thought, and useful for teachers to see if they can offer guidance or correction on what you've said. Leave it to me to weed out the useless stuff on my talk pages :) Rschwieb (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well... I didn't expected to read this... There really is no need for either of you to apologise because it was simply in the wrong place anyway, and as Quondum said - what help are formulae in 3d? Though I certainly appreciate your thoughts and concerns. Thank you! =)

The diagrams were also relativley rushed, they could have been done better but I hoped they would serve the purpose, so quickly posted them. Again - its very decent and thoughtful of you to applause them, so thanks and absolutely no problem, more of a pleasure. =)

However Jheald - I don't understand what your implications are about Matrix mechanics, but by all means you can revert/delete any and all of my edits if you think so: I really will not be offended if it means a better article is the result. I simply transferred content from Schrödinger equation to there due to overlap and the length of that article. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 17:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

To be honest the last time I looked at the article was February 2010, so I certainly wasn't commenting on any recent changes you may have made! But the article doesn't seem to have changed that much since then. (diff). If you like, I can look out some of the notes I made at the time, to remind me exactly what I was uncomfortable about. Jheald (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand better. You’re correct that Matrix mechanics hasn't improved that much since then. No offence to any editors of that article, though as I say the edit history it’s not in acceptable shape - especially for its importance. Please do show me (perhaps everyone at the talk page) your notes - they will surely help. I'll be watching pages time to time though can't be editing WP too much anymore (exams). Should also mention I'm not very familiar with matrix mechanics actually (more so with wave mechanics) - again I only transferred content and cleaned up what bits I could. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 07:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Original research

My references are directed at content, not author or journal. Page editors have the prerogative to remove offensive references, but they have the obligation to do so responsibly, not reflexively. My Dirac equation edit reads well without the reference to my work, but it reads better with the reference where the photon energy-momentum relation is shown to follow from the photon function full derivative. So, I ask that the deleted reference be restored. (HCPotter (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC))