Talk:Quantum superposition

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quantum superposition article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: Index, 1: 3 months

What is the purpose of this article?

(a) to enable professionals to show off their specialized knowledge of the subject and thereby inflate their egos? Or (b) to educate non-professional readers about the subject using language and terms that the average person can understand? 2600:8801:BE1C:1D00:FA07:6031:AB4E:440C (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess (c), to explain a complex topic typically taught in 3rd year college physics classes as well as unpaid volunteer editors are able to do. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

99.999% of Wikipedia users are not nor have ever been in 3rd year college physics classes. The inflated egos writing this kind of Wikipedia articles only prove that they are utterly incapable of doing the job an encyclopedia is supposed to do, and that is to divulge knowledge to laypeople. If they are unable to do so, they shouldn't write Wikipedia articles and go stroke their egos elsewhere. It's astonishing and mildly disgusting to see how many Wikipedia articles have become totally unreadable for their intended audience because their "unpaid volunteer editors" don't give a damn about their readers. 2A02:1811:2C13:6300:28D3:4F70:BC4A:A1F7 (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your so-much-better explanations are welcomed. Just push the edit button and enlighten everyone with your great care for readers, unusually readable content, and through verifiable references. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Physical interpretation

I deleted the entire section "Physical interpretation" since it had no sources and it was puzzling mix of topics.

The concept of superposition is fundamental to explain many physical effects. I believe that is what the section was going for, but by way of an example. But the topic is quite involved and needs development.

Similarly the "meaning" or interpretation of superposition itself is involved. The section should summarize the role of superposition in various interpretations of QM esp. Everett and Feynman. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to superposition principle?

There's nothing particularly unique about a "quantum" superposition. It's still just a superposition. Though I suppose making it a redirect to "addition" doesn't have the same ring to it ;) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that this article should make the point that superposition is not uniquely quantum (given a suitable reference), I don't agree that this article should merge. Superposition of material waves are directly viewable but superposition of probability is invisible and can only be inferred by consequences. That is why it took so long to sort out QM. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section on quantum computing deleted

I reverted a new section on quantum computing. It had three problems. First it was incorrect: per the authoritative source

Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (2010). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, page xix

superposition is not required for quantum computation. Second it did not give sources for important definitions like "uniform superpositions". Third it was overly detailed on issues unrelated to the topic: it was about issues important for quantum computation, not superposition. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new section never stated that "superposition is required for quantum computation." Instead, it said, "Superposition plays an important role in quantum computation algorithms," which is true. The same source that you cited includes Grover's algorithm, which requires quantum superposition.

Second, "it did not give sources for important definitions like 'uniform superpositions'"—this is incorrect. A source link to a published article was provided, which contains this term. As mentioned earlier, Grover's algorithm, explained in the book by Nielsen and Chuang, also contains this definition. Moreover, you should have provided a link to the book instead of deleting the entire section.

Third, "it was not overly detailed on issues unrelated to the topic"—the section discussed quantum superposition and provided examples that might help readers understand how it can be implemented on a quantum computer. It offers important insights that could be valuable to readers. QuantumSurf (talk) 08:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia needs sources, not "truth". If you say "Superposition plays an important role in quantum computation algorithms," provide a reliable source on that topic.

2. The content did not even explain what a 'uniform superposition' was.

3. The section has too much emphasis on computing and not enough on the topic "superposition".

I think a section related to this content could be useful in this article, but the current version is not suitable. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left the first paragraph. If we can get it into shape with more content about superposition, how it relates to quantum computing, why is 'uniform' needed, and how is 'uniform' created, then maybe more about computing could be added. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]