Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to Dirac's constant

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Planck constant. There is a consensus that this should be merged somewhere. Planck constant seems ok. Fixing the redirects and editing articles is on the other hand not something that would be discussed at AfD so I am closing this. Tone 20:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Dirac's constant

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no reason for this content fork of Introduction to quantum mechanics to exist. Any useful content can be merged to Planck's constant. TimothyRias (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP No reason to lose the history of the article even if it does turn into a redirect. Delete is simply the wrong question.--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Dirac equation. Also change Dirac's constant to point to Dirac equation instead of to Planck constant, which does not mention "Dirac's constant". Where Dirac equation introduces the term "reduced Planck's constant", it should have (also know as Dirac's constant), and perhaps a paragraph explaining the advantage of using Dirac's notation taken from this article. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Dirac equation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I gave my reasons for suggesting that this article should be removed at Talk:Introduction to Dirac's constant, on further reflection I agree that it would be preferable to delete this article rather than leave it as a pointless redirect. Responding to points above, the article doesn't have any history, it was split off from Introduction to quantum mechanics (in order to get excessive material out of that article, rather than as a content fork). The Dirac equation is something else. Djr32 (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about the title, I agree it would be a pointless redirect. I did change Dirac's constant to point to Dirac equation instead of to Planck constant (which does not mention Dirac's constant), and changed the Dirac equation article to say "... reduced Planck's constant (also know as Dirac's constant) ..." and to define "reduced Planck's constant". The target of a redirect should at least contain the search term, and the Dirac equation article should say what is meant by the "reduced Planck's constant". I am very rusty indeed on this subject, but I seem to remember that Dirac's introduction of the new symbol was a bit more than just an algebraic shorthand - it expressed an intuitive insight. Is that covered in the article on Dirac equation? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dirac equation article jumps right in to the heavy math, and it simply gives a mathematical definition of h-bar in terms of h. The question would seem to me to be whether there would be the political will to provide an article on the Dirac equation that could be handled by bright pre-college types or other people with an interest in physics but without at least a couple years as a physics major or a math major. The unsigned message above is correct, I believe, in asserting that the prominence assumed by h-bar in Dirac's thinking was such that it prompted some people to rename it as "Dirac's constant."

Investigating the history of the thought processes by which Dirac made his equations might well help some students understand the significance of the math in Dirac's work. But just take a look at the Dirac equation article and tell me where 15-20k of popularized physics and historical background would fit. P0M (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting the discussion at Talk:Planck constant#Who_calls_it_.22Dirac.27s_constant.22.3F for an explanation of why the phrase "Dirac constant" doesn't appear on the Planck constant page any more. Djr32 (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Dirac himself used the term "Dirac's constant" - probably not. But I have a vague memory of attending a lecture he gave in the late 1960s and getting one of those "Ah-ha" moments when he introduced h-bar. That symbol is commonly used instead of h in the basic equation for the uncertainty principle. It has all slipped away. I would be grateful to someone who could write an article explaining the thought process in reasonably simple terms, as suggested by P0M. Maybe this "introduction" article could be a starting point. I understand just how difficult that would be. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McEvoy and Zarate's Introducing Quantum Theory (which is generally reliable even though kept simple) doesn't have much on it. You could look at the article that blew Heisenberg's mind away in Sources of Quantum Mechanics. Since you had the insight, you may be able to recover it by looking at what he wrote. The insight that h-bar encodes is that the angular velocity of an electron (in whatever sense an electron can have velocity) is quantized. Angular momentum, spin, etc., all mean something, and what we see on a classical scale may be built on these more fundamental phenomena. The key thing that Dirac did, as I understand it, was to create a model that could produce a particle-appropriate answer if asked one kind of question and a wave-like answer if asked a wavey question.

I have to go back to the macro world of angular momentum as it applies to diverting the courses of large athletic or angry bodies, so until I get caught up on the mental/spiritual world, or the "zone" of, martial artists I'm afraid I won't be much help. (Fortunately I only have to think about it at this point.) Maybe there is something in one of Brian Greene's books that could get you started on writing the article you want. P0M (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge into one of the other articles as suggested. Deleting it would remove its history, which is useful. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been mentioned at WikiProject Physics. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Planck constant. Duh. That's not such a large topic like general relativity as to require the nontechnical introduction to be on a separate page. --___A. di M. 17:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge into Planck constant. To do so seems reasonable. However, Aymatth2 has brought up the idea that Dirac's constant, i.e., conceptualizing the quantum character of things in a new way, had some (at a minimum) heuristic effect in regard to the development of the Dirac equation. If that understanding can be fleshed out somehow, then the Planck/Dirac thing may require explication somewhere. P0M (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this pointless article. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. It might be merged with Planck constant, but an AfD discussion is not the place to decide this. Please suggest merging and discuss it at articles talk pages.Biophys (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.