Talk:Fermi's golden rule

Reference issue

As the author of the first reference removed by someone, I do believe the derivation of Fermi's golden rule in my paper is the simplest one in the literature. Yes, Fermi's golden rule is derived in every textbook on quantum mechanics, but I have not yet seen the derivation done in my paper. This is also the opinion of some Editorial Board member of PRA. The paper is in some new journal, which is open-access and open-review. If you want to judge the quality of a paper simply by the IF, I can say nothing. The only drawback of my derivation is that it is based on some assumptions, which make the derivation not so general as in textbooks. But, I believe it is still of much pedagogical use. I emphasized this explicitly in my paper as a footnote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdlang (talk • contribs) 17:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 1st reference, to some random paper that didn't have any relevance. Seemed like a plug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.14.155 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zahilaty is right, using T is misleading, the more common notation is \Gamma

Hi, i think marking the transition rate with T is wrong,because it might suggest a time units, where when marking it with \gamma is more acceptable(suggest time^-1 units).Zahilaty (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the constant is correct as written. See any introductory quantum mechanics textbook. I just checked Liboff, myself, p.739. --Jacobjon 19:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the constant given correct? Isn't it 2x(pi)/h not 2x(pi)/H-bar? I.E. it should be equal to 1/h-bar

I've never heard of Fermi's silver rule, so I checked it out and Google says that it is not a widespread term, so I've removed that see also. --Laura Scudder | Talk 05:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is more often seen capitalized because it's namesake the Golden Rule is also. — Laura Scudder ☎ 02:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Fermi himself called it "Golden Rule No. 2." What did he call Golden Rule No. 1? 81.110.14.145 09:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i believe this article could greatly benefit from information on where FGR is used, e.g decay rates for radioactive nuclei, gamma emmision for excited states etc, prehaps with a worked example, unfortuantely im not the one to do this 193.60.83.241 (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

This page is in need of a complete rewrite with (most importantly) an actual derivation of Fermi's golden rule. I believe everything needed to write such a derivation is available in the following two pdf's: U Texas, Rutgers. Maybe one day I'll have time... Njerseyguy (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, did it with a 6 year delay... I just put in the bare essentials, as this should not be a tutorial on time-dependent perturbation theory, but only the "tree" sticking out in the "forest": the felicitous mutation of a single rate linear in the time to a collective constant rate which explains how exponential radioactive decay is described by the Schroedinger eqn, after all−−perhaps counterintuitively. This is the core essence of what makes the rule "golden" and Fermi's name might not be inappropriate, if only for his supreme taste of emphasizing its over-arching significance.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your edit is, you removed a link (which i re-added), you add nothing significant, but instead you edit the page in a way to fit whatever you think is best in your opinion. I ask you now again to add references where they belong and to not change content without references. prokaryotes (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew what your were talking about.... I expanded the article substantially to address its glaring deficiencies, and all references refer to the crucial points of the text. Of course I agree with the point of view of these references. I am a professional expert on the subject. They capture the essence of the problem, a subtle one, at that. What is your point? Summary rollbacks like your recent one are not constructive, and, as I asked w.r.t. your adjugate matrix peremptory rollbacks, are you insisting there is no retaliatory dimension in this business? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attacks have been reported, but, with due diligence, it should evident the editorial activity here is not disjoint from them. Please opine on whether this looks like original research (!!??) assuming you had some working knowledge of QM. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive edits by User:prokaryotes

I reverted the rather bizarrely clueless template of "original research " by User:prokaryotes. The article and its details are fully annotated to reputable sources. Anyone with a decent course of quantum mechanics under their belt could identify the material in the sources cited, or else provide their own sources, provided they be mainstream.

Systematic abuse of templates of this kind constitutes mindless littering of WP. Desist. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not how Wikipedia works, read WP:OR, you can not make a case based on the original papers, you require a secondary source. And why do you have removed now for a second time a link to a paper mentioned by another editor above (Texas U), as well as all my attempts to improve the article. prokaryotes (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can certainly cite original papers by Dirac and Fermi. They are in turn quoted in secondary sources. The link to an anonymous pdf is not good enough for a reference or even an external link. No doi/no isbn = no good. YohanN7 (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A respectful, gentle tweak: even the Fermi ref [2] is actually a 2ndary lecture notes booklet... It is arguably cited as primary, for establishing the name, but, really, the Merzbacher text is a classic and should satisfy the most stringent reader. But, again, the claim of original research is unsound.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot put daft interpretations into WP's mouth. [2] is a secondary source, and so are [3] and [4] on which the article relies. Do you understand time-dependent perturbation theory at all? Do you wish [3] and [4] to be repeatedly cited further up in the article? They suffice. I recall your rants of yesterday objecting to too many references. which is it, now? A further mainstream source may well be acceptable, but the extraneous ref you mention overlaps [3] substantially. I will add Merzbacher, Eugen (1998). Quantum Mechanics. Wiley, John & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-88702-1, but it would be constructive if you Proposed your changes and questions here first, and then waited for consensus, instead of hurling WP manual pages to interlocutors, which you evidently excel at misreading. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Independent editor here - let's not make this about WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, which is bordering on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please keep this discussion civil and about the issue at hand, not about whether someone is "qualified" to edit or not. Garchy (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciative of your intermediation. (The personal attacks have been reported, but, with due diligence, it should evident the editorial activity here is not disjoint from them.) Please opine on whether this looks like "original research" (!!??) assuming you had some working/teaching knowledge of QM. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I do not, but the best way would be to reach WP:CONSENSUS, possibly by working through WikiProject Physics, as they may have additional independent experts who can weigh in. I'll add a note to that page linking here, to see if anyone responds. Garchy (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As prokaryotes insists on misunderstanding pretty much every WP:THIS and WP:THAT there is, I provide an excerpt from the lead of WP:No original research:

The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed.

Please note two things:

...all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed'

This bullet says not every sentence must actually be attributed, just attributable.

This bullet says also that OR is fine, as long as it is published and reliable. Both Dirac and Fermi are reliable.

As a note to the unknowing, prokaryotes has spent the last 80-100 edits spamming articles with nonsense templates like here in multiple articles previously edited by Cuzkatzimhut and has duly been reported for edit-warring. YohanN7 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the first paragraph of OR again, then explain the second paragraph of current article revision, and keep the discussion of OR at the noticeboard. Also post your replies below previous comments, not in between (WP Rule). Also please read WP:CIR. prokaryotes (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable! You flung CIR at me yesterday, only to conclude with a COI having been reassured I am a professional. Which one is it? Are you the arbiter of exclusion for WP editors, now? Yes, most editors have read the manuals. Your misplaced innuendos don't exactly sanction legal vandalism. "Read" is not a courteous way to hurl invective, just because it can simulate deniability in the absence of a persistent pattern. This is your compliance with Garchy's injunction above? This is your way of helping improve the article? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are serious issues Cuzkatzimhut, if on your own account you get paid, related to the subjects we discussed recently, you might as well have a COI. Your attempts in regards to OR now, are also an issue. I also notice you do not respond to the key aspects of the discussions we have, beginning with my first reply to you above. Thus my hint at CIR.prokaryotes (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Key aspects"? you have a focus, beyond rampant invective? Your claim is that any professional physicist is not allowed to edit WP? Whose OR? Dirac's, cited in Fermi's secondary source? Mine? I have never worked on, but have taught the subject, of course. This disqualifies me from countering quasi-vandal obstructionism? You just trashed valid references in scalar field theory, properly referenced to Ramond--you may adduce chapter 1 for classical and chapter 4 for phi-4, beyond chapter 3 for the functional integral. Do you have excess time on your hands, to lavish on systematic disruption? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we have these talk pages to discuss the article, and now we discuss your revert of my edits, in particular the OR tag. 1. OR: The current references do not backup the claims made in the article. 2. And explain why you reverted my edits. Is it possible, can you respond to this?prokaryotes (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I have been doing that for 2 days?!! Schwitter's [4] certainly contain the material and attributes the rule to Dirac--which is more than obvious, given the time-dependent pert section of Dirac's paper cited. What exactly do you want beyond this? Have you done the much-vaunted CIR due diligence yet?Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. References should go to the relevant content. 2. The ref you mention above is not supporting the claims made in the second paragraph. 3. You did not respond why you removed my attempts to add structure to the article, or improving links. prokaryotes (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are being oracular. Are you proposing to move refs around given the fact they cover all questions posed? How is Schwitter's headline attribution insufficient? What is wrong with Dirac's paper that clarifies this very statement? what structure? What is wrong with prefatory material in the lede? Did you explain your peremptory, petulant, retaliatory, and ill-advised moves? Why are people supposed to stick to all imagined rules you blithely break routinely? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as per Kingsindian advice, i moved Schwitters to burnish Dirac's primary source with his, (S's) secondary source. This could have been done in a jiffy yesterday, but I doubt that was the "problem" involved. I'm sure the bulk of this article's 10000 readers of the last 90 days will roll their eyes at the depths of theological pedantry rogue Wikipedians are prepared to go to. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Schwitter too has nothing to justify the claims made in this article. prokaryotes (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you believe is Dirac's name doing up there? Are Schwitters' referencing practices below your exalted WP standard? Have you learned about Dirac's time-dependent perturbation theory, at all in QM, if you ever took a course in it? Do we still have to prove the existence of fish?Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained here and in the follow up comments by other editors. Apparently you are ignoring other arguments based on Wikipedia rules. Your defense and reverts of valid edits is in violation with WP:OR.prokaryotes (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fear you have not: the statement is none of this "from Dirac" oracular stuff, but, carefully chosen: "most of the work leading to the Golden Rule is due to Dirac". Schwitters asserts it, and Dirac's paper illustrates it. Getting this broken record treatment does not exactly advance communication, does it? Or is that not the intent? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Schwitter asserts that the rule is from Dirac? If he used the equation, then this is still OR. prokaryotes (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I insisted above to drop your odd and spurious "from Dirac" which the article does not use. Schwitters, line 4: "originally by Dirac & Fermi". Dirac's paper cited precedes Fermi's career. What, exactly are you contesting, and whom are you trying to convince of what or assist on what? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You construct something based on a sub headline with your own definition. Even if we take these 4 words into account, it does not back up the claims of the second paragraph. prokaryotes (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is however a letter published in 2009 about this issue, http://www.nat.vu.nl/~tvisser/GoldenRule.pdf (From NL University) This might pass as a reliable secondary source.prokaryotes (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phew... a satisfactory published proof of the existence of fish... Well done. Now, everybody, take a holiday from this article, or improve the Physics! Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]