Talk:Phase-space formulation
 | A fact from Phase-space formulation appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 June 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
click to animate? edit
The time-dependent WF figures in the SHO section need clicking (twice) to animate, even though they are animated .gif files. I wonder what is off. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Better to emphasize affinity to Schr representation edit
Re: User:Maschen's edit on yanking out Schr rep linkage. I would actually agree with whoever originally emphasized the Schr rep. In this version of the phase space formulation, x and p are time independent, and the Wigner function (==density matrix) is time dependent. Dynamical trajectory (x(t),p(t)) cultists have found themselves in endless morasses of grief and confusion, all avoidable... So, Moyal's dynamical equation is basically the Schr-rep von Neumann eqn expressed in phase space. An astute reader could figure it all by themselves, but why be in this article then? I would strongly urge restoration of logical linkage to the Schr rep. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Better? Or you prefer the ordinal wording? Thanks for feedback, M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 15:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Better, in my (limited) view. I think it is fine, but can use "useS"..... Thanks for your salutary efforts! Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Husimi distribution edit
I reverted a repetitive plug today of the Bargmann-Segal transform leading to the Husimi distribution. That distribution is already suggested as an alternative, and referenced, further up in the text, and its derivation should not be of interest here. In addition, the implication that it might be a bona -fide probability distribution, instead, is plainly unsound. It too violates Kolmogorov's 3rd axiom, as any distribution in accord with the uncertainty principle; and, worse, to produce expectation values of functions identically to the Wigner function, it requires unintegrated star products inside the integral, in sharp contrast to the Wigner function picture. Misleading polemical labels on it have no place in this particular article here. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 02:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)