Talk:Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation

Justification outline

Right now, this article looks like a cobbled-together bunch of physics material. It took me a while to notice that the article even contains the Schrödinger equation, and it's not at all clear how the earlier sections help to justify the equation.

The introduction currently is ridiculously short, only two sentences. Perhaps it should outline the justification and at least state where each major section fits into that justification.

Also, why the "Theoretical and experimental" in the title? Why not just call it "Justification for the Schrödinger equation" or even "Schrödinger equation justification"? Brian Jason Drake 07:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Because there's a philosophy section somewhere else?

There's a diagram which shows a magnetic and electric field propagating. I think the fields should be 90 degrees out of phase in the x direction as well as being in differing planes. This allows the energy in the field to move from the electric to the magnetic field and back. Perhaps someone can confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.137.170 (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Both the above two points now raised at WT:PHYSICS, and the question asked: Is this article serving any useful purpose? Or should it go to AfD? Jheald (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I replied there, and I'll repeat here: do not delete articles this long without reason. The content is not great, but there are diagrams and equations and discussions which should be cannibalized into other articles. If someone is willing to do the hard work of merging the sections into appropriate places, save the good stuff, then you can delete the remaining cruft. But this is a relatively big project. I don't want to take it on.

But it isn't pressing, someone could do it in six months, if you don't AfD. AfD is for unsalvagable content.Likebox (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

just to note out

i love this kind of article at wikipedia. s2 --187.40.168.210 (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Change the title at least...

What a let-down when I started reading this article! And it's not really excusable just to let it lie there with that title and classify it as a beginning or as source material (which it is, I agree). The article should be re-labelled so people like me don't click on it and get disappointed because there is NO "experimental justification" as is claimed by that title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.157.135 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)