Talk:Quantum LC circuit

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article is nonsensical edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

IMHO this article is nonsensical. A "quantum LC oscillator" is simply a quantized harmonic oscillator. Absolutely nothing of importance can be learned by renaming the variables of a mechanical entity that is mathematically identical to its electric counterpart. It is, fittingly, treated as an appendix item in one of the sources (Michel H.Devoret. Quantum Fluctuation in Electric Circuit).

The discussion of quantized wave impedance seems to make little sense. "Wave impedance" is a property of full electromagnetic theory. Discrete LC circuits do not even map to electromagnetic waves in the classical case (for instance, they do not incorporate polarization, a fundamental property of electromagnetic waves) and they are not being used (except maybe in poorly taught classes for engineers) to represent toy models for Maxwell's Theory.

The correctly quantized version of Maxwell's equations has been known for many decades, see "Quantum Electrodynamics" or QED. Latter theory can predict fundamental properties of the vacuum ab initio with the highest precision known in theoretical physics and allows calculation of electromagnetic systems in the quantum limit correctly. The treatise in this article predicts, as far as I can tell, nothing, and can not even handle the most simple physical questions related to wave propagation (despite talking about "impedances" of the vacuum and fundamental properties of the electron).

QED, in comparison, treats the vacuum as the non-linear medium that it really is (and thus is able to describe pair-production, photon-photon scattering etc.), something no linear theory (like the classical harmonic oscillator) can.

In effect, the article is, at best, a (poor performing) student exercise in "intellectual nonsense". Most likely it is either a hoax or some pseudoscientist's "work". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.190.146 (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

confirming the above edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The math and the language get increasingly dodgy as the article progresses. Has only really been worked on by two people, one of whom previously created a lot of deleted fauxsics articles related to gravitation and quantum oscillators. Needs extensive peer review if it is to stay. –SJ + 06:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Notability edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have removed the WP:PROD, as a quick look at Google Books, Google Scholar and Scirus yields about half a dozen journal sources and several books. Paradoctor (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just for information, this article, along with a number of others, was tangentially discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selfconsistent gravidynamic constants. The conclusion seems to have been that a lot of OR needed removing but nothing has been done about it since. SpinningSpark 20:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Quantum LC circuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic