Talk:Quantum statistical mechanics

This page was proposed for deletion by 69.107.204.78 (talk · contribs) on 12 September 2011.
It was contested by Nsk92 (talk · contribs) on 13 September 2011

Untitled

"This can be shown under various mathematical formalisms for quantum mechanics. One such formalism is provided by quantum logic."

What exactly can be shown? --129.7.56.26 18:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That

A statistical ensemble is described by a density operator S, which is a non-negative, self-adjoint, trace-class operator of trace 1 on the Hilbert space H describing the quantum system.

--CSTAR 18:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the use of the non-standard Exp(A) to represent the expectation value A a good idea? It's massively confusing given that exp(x) is typically taken as e^x.

Ugh. This whole article needs a major overhaul. It's got lots of non-standard notation, and the treatment is very shallow. linas (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does "quantum ensemble" redirect to this article that doesn't explain what a quantum ensemble is? I'm tagging it for deletion. Maybe someone will replace it with a less terrible article.69.107.204.78 (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article really doesn't tell me anything about what quantum statistical mechanics is. Definitely needs a complete overhaul. 2607:9880:1A18:10A:3830:F357:B9F5:6B3D (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate changes to the Talk page.

@67.198.37.16 Please stop changing other peoples posts on this page. If you want to discuss issues with the page, please post your topics for discussion. The format and titles that other editors used is up to them. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are edit warring because what, I gave you a compliment on your talk page a week ago? I really did mean it as a compliment. I'm sorry if you found it insulting, but it is not an excuse to act silly on this talk page. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thanked you there and I thank you here, sincerely. As for this Talk page, I'll repeat part of what I said there:

If you want to create a TODO list to discuss open issues, please do so! Just open a new topic. That will make it clear whose opinions are being expressed. You may wish to refer to or quote previous posts. Just don't alter what they said, however incoherent you think it may be. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a physics topic.

The current content of this page is 100% mathematical. In my opinion a physics topic should start with physics. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]