Draft talk:Quantum confinement of Bloch waves

+1 for Creation

I saw this AfC on the Physics article alerts

@DoubleGrazing First: +1 for insisting on references! @Luman2009: nice work!

Here are my suggestions

• I think the introduction is interesting and fairly easy to read.
• Several links should go directly on the words not parenthetical repeats. For example:
  • Quantum confinement is a physics effect showing essential distinctions of quantum mechanics(see Quantum confinement).
  • should read:
  • Quantum confinement is a physics effect unique to quantum mechanics.
• The very first sentence should include the topic, eg Quantum confinement of Bloch waves reveals new physical effects by applying finite boundaries - confinement - to period wave models in solids - Bloch waves.
• There are numerous extra plurals, for example "understandings" -> "understanding"
• The "Discussions" should be renamed. but first we need to understand why it is in the article. I think it should be "Applications" or "New Physical Results" ?
• If possible include a short "Primary effects of confinement on Bloch waves" section summarizing the theory results in one short paragraph.
• Move the content of the current "Discussions" to right after the "Primary..." section or right after the introduction at least.

HTH, Johnjbarton (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in my draft and your helpful suggestions and comments.

I have made revisions accordingly. You are very welcome to see my draft again.

I hope you see it is improved. Luman2009 (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

yes, nicely improved! I made another pass mostly to wikipedia-ify it a bit more.

Two questions came to me while reading:

1) Can the second item on the boundary dependent effects list have a reference for the QCBW prediction? The existing reference in that item seems to be not quite about QCBW?

2) You have 4 boundary dependent effects, but not much is said about size dependence. Perhaps another sentence can be added (and a ref?)? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your revisions. I appreciate it.

I revised several sentences in the draft in response to your two early questions. You can easily see my modifications. Luman2009 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks looking good.

It seems, based on my experience, that Wikipedia articles treat references as primarily "evidence of reliable information" rather than "place to look for more information". Of course these are not at all exclusive, but I think this perspective is why you might find most references are not called out explicitly. Thus "describe in" or "obtained by" etc are simply dropped. An additional factor is Wikipedia strongly favors reviews and books, (secondary sources) to avoid speculative content. In fact they have whole essays on the topic, eg WP:RELIABLE. Anyway I just wanted you know why I had removed these 'call out' words previously. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your very constructive message. There is so much to learn.

After seeing your message, I have removed these 'call out' words. Luman2009 (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

One more suggestion: have you considered adding your content to eg Bloch's theorem page rather than a separate page?

Search engines will find content equally well. A redirect link entitled "Quantum confinement of Bloch waves" will allow wikilinks like Quantum confinement of Bloch waves to work.

The main advantages are that readers of Bloch's theorem will encounter the material in the table of contents, intro, and by scrolling through. Similarly wikipedia editors who fix up spelling, English, and formatting are more likely to see the content. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion! Should we wait for the review of this current submission？ Luman2009 (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

It was already added to that article earlier, and discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive April 2023#Bloch theorem size effects. In the end, the section was removed. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would also be beneficial to improve quantum confinement and make it into an independent article. However, that article should have a neutral point of view provided by reliable secondary sources, and not be so focused on the works by Shang Yuan Ren which are heavily cited in this draft. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The current draft is completely different from the small section in April. Unfortunately, Shang Yuan Ren is the only author who obtained the major conclusions, which subsequent investigations of many other authors have confirmed cited in the draft. Luman2009 (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Only one of the book editions needs to be cited. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the earlier edition of the book. Luman2009 (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Scope

Shang Yuan Ren is the only author who obtained the major conclusions. This may indeed be true within the scope of this draft, at least if we for some reason measure progress from 1990s onwards (however, in Wikipedia, we should not emphasize recent progress). There is a major assumption here: namely that the topic can be chosen to be merely the strict mathematical study of the model of Eq. (3) and its higher dimensional generalizations. But I do not think we should have a Wikipedia article on such as specialized topic. Instead we should have an article about Quantum confinement, which would have a broader scope, including other mathematical models, material considerations, and applications. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Different opinions are normal. Have a good day! Luman2009 (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)