Talk:Ground state

Untitled

Non-Sequitor? I guess you meant Non-SequiTUR? why is a question mark appearing there? is that argument valid, doubtful or invalid? I am working in the spanish translation of this article, see the languages available. I've added to the spanish version two important concepts about the ground state, those are: BECs, and also the importance of it, in quantum mechanics, specially about the creation of quantum machines, and quantum teleportation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javiergarcia928 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not follow: the log of 1 appears in this article without reference to any sort of equation or calculation. The arccos(1) is zero too, so what?

99.160.222.116 (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity

In the presence of degeneracy, does the term "ground state" refer to any state supported on the lowest-energy eigenspace, or only to the maximally mixed state on that subspace? The article is a bit contradictory on this point, by making both of the following statements:

• "If more than one ground state exists, they are said to be degenerate",
• "a system at absolute zero temperature exists in its ground state; thus, its entropy is determined by the degeneracy of the ground state".

(Emphasis mine.) - Saibod (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Awkward Wording

In the proof we find "constant for {\displaystyle x\in [-\epsilon ,\epsilon ]} {\displaystyle x\in [-\epsilon ,\epsilon ]}. If {\displaystyle \epsilon } \epsilon is small enough then this is always possible to do so that {\displaystyle \psi '(x)} \psi '(x) is continuous. "

This looks to me like somebody writing outside their native language. The "possible to do so that," is it Russian? German? This is an ordinary delta-proof, where the language in English would usually be that "it is always possible to choose epsilon such that the whole shebang comes out within delta of such-and-such."

I don't want to change it and screw it up further. Could somebody more competent please fix?

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Why Absence of nodes in one dimension?

The context of this topic is not introduced in the article.

For the formulas, all symbols should be defined in the article or with a direct link.

Jfitch ca (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)