Talk:Quantum

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2020 and 23 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jhernandez127.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Random Text in the article

3rd paragraph, first sentence.

"An entirely new conceptual framework shows that priya is the biggest whore on the planet, and it was developed around this idea, during the first half of the twentieth century."

I am fairly certain this text should not be here. Sorry I don't know the user who posted this or if there is a better previous version. I don't know the Wikipedia UI at all, but I do want to fix vandalism. Thanks, -JRC 3-24-08

www.quanta.com.tw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.210.145.12 (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Quantum leap" misuse

The article as currently written states under the section Misuse that "A 'quantum leap' has been used colloquially since the 1950s to imply a large change, as opposed to the smallest possible change.", and I was surprised to see this complaint. When I hear "quantum leap" I tend to think of the dramatic change in theoretical physics when quantum mechanics was invented, which seems like a giant intellectual jump, rather than some small transition between atomic states, which is never referred to as a "leap". That said, I usually don't like hearing the term "quantum leap" in popular culture, because so few people appreciate what a huge leap it actually was to discover quantum theory. Indeed, Journals such as "Nature materials" use quantum leap to mean a gigantic step forward: http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v2/n11/abs/nmat1006.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.1.186 (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The colloquial use/abuse should stay. I have heard it as well. See [[1]] and wikt:Quantum leap The "abuse" is well sourced: BBC, CJR It has multiple definitions. Jim1138 (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with Jim1138 on several grounds. First, the BBC source is not authoritative, since it's from a popular 'news magazine', written by a journalist, focusing neither on language nor physics but on a James Bond movie. Second, the CJR source does not support the notion that the colloquial use is mistaken: it says 'using “quantum leap” to mean “big jump” is fully idiomatic', though 'it’s best to avoid using just plain “quantum” to mean “huge”'. Third, labelling a language usage 'misuse' or 'abuse' is inappropriate in an encyclopaedia. 'Non-standard', 'unidiomatic', etc., yes: these are factual claims. 'Misuse' / 'Abuse' is a value judgement. Finally, there is no reason to think that colloquial 'quantum leap' betrays or originates in a misunderstanding. Here's what the Merriam Webster Dictionary of English Usage - an established, sober, carefully-researched authority - has to say on the matter:

"The [cited] critics regard quantum jump as a technical term misused by ignorant laymen. The argument is academic, since the critized usage is now established as standard, but it seems worthwhile to point out that the idea originally underlying the extended sense was abruptness rather than largeness, and that this sense appears to have originated among scientists, not laymen. In any case, a quantum jump in physics may be small, but it is also significant. The extended sense is not quite as illogical as the commentators make it out to be."

So I suggest that this is a non-issue and the section could be deleted without losing anything of importance. Bramir (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with this deletion.Bramir (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Primary topic?

Is this the primary topic, or should the disambiguation page be located here? Power~enwiki (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It's is Alwakhe Mondi (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

'See also' List

The 'see also' list must be shortened. From thought experiments, to gravitons, to mysticism, it is extensive in all the wrong ways, and takes up so much space on the page that perhaps these terms should be instead incorporated into the text to explain why people should go to them, instead of redirecting them. If not get rid of a few terms, revise it. Not all the links are entirely important to the topic (appearing somewhat arbitrary), while it's missing links that are striking so. Tea-caff (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)