Talk:Phase-space wavefunctions

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 25 August 2020 by reviewer Robert McClenon (talk · contribs).

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reviewer Note

The following was received from an editor at WikiProject Physics -

-The Draft and its author made a factual Error, in misunderstanding/ignoring Moyal's original formulation of off-diagonal Wigner functions, necessary for QM interference, which does very much handle phases, adequately.

-There have been numerous efforts, since the late 40s, of "plugging" Wigner functions (density matrix) on the right, to simulate "wavefunctions". All of them, have been judged by posterity to be hyper formal and misguided. That is why they are not mentioned in the umbrella phase-space formulation article.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from WikiProject Physics Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Phase space quantum mechanics

Will someone please review this draft? It is beyond what a chemist can be expected to understand. Does it rely on reliable sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could be notable, but it reads like a text book and seems inconsistent with Wikipedia style. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

There are many things that could be called a phase space representation of quantum mechanics; see Wigner quasiprobability distribution and the chapter in Peres' textbook on such things. This article seems (it is not written very clearly) to be about something more specific, but it does not express what the contribution of that more specific implementation of the "let's do quantum mechanics on a phase space" idea is. Indeed, it cites an article on the topic that is decades older than the one which it claims introduced the subject. If I didn't already know something about the topic, I'd be completely lost; as it is, I'm only mostly confused about what they're trying to explain. XOR'easter (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The references look OK as far as reliability goes — not everyone would trust Advances in High Energy Physics, since Hindawi doesn't have a great reputation for quality, but Annals of Physics and Physics Letters A are probably solid (Elsevier is an awful corporation, but we can expect that those specific journals likely provide solid peer reviews). I haven't heard anything either good or bad about the Ukrainian Journal of Physics. My concern is that they are only lightly cited, are in some cases very recent and seem to be from the same group, apart from one that was added by someone other than the creator. Honestly, this looks like what you'd get if you told the newest grad student in your research group to write a Wikipedia page about your research. XOR'easter (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is an opportunity to prompt them (the primary editor) to clean up some aspects (e.g. sourcing diversity). As someone who does not understand the detail but who is able to understand a well-written outline explanation of the topic, I find that the lead is essentially completely missing an accessible outline of what is being talked about. A more accessible outline (plus diverse reliable sources to establish notability more clearly) would be helpful in assessing it. I am also particularly concerned that this looks at a glance to be largely a duplication of content of the article Phase-space formulation, including re-use of diagrams. Establishing the difference from that article should be the primary focus, not repeating much of the content without highlighting the differences; this might count against it being a clearly distinct topic. —Quondum 00:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems in fact to be bits and pieces of the phase-space formulation article, chopped up and made less comprehensible. Phase-space formulation has a legitimate lead, decent prose, and better sourcing. New additions should start there — the topic is one that has many variations — before one tries to make an entire new article. XOR'easter (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer Thought

The suggestion has been made that sometimes a difficult uncertain scientific article should be accepted to be dealt with by scientific reviewers, who will be more numerous in article space than in draft space. In the absence of any other comments, I will probably do that. There is a significant chance that this article will be nominated for deletion. A reviewer is supposed to guess that there is less than a 50% chance of an article being deleted, and I will probably be making that guess. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]