Login
Login

Talk:Timeline of quantum mechanics

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|

{{WikiProject Lists|class=List|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Physics|importance=mid}}

}}

Timeline discussion

See the Timeline section at Talk:History of quantum mechanics for a discussion of this timeline's contents. There are still entries in this timeline that have questionable relevance to the history of quantum mechanics. — Myasuda (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:Questionable still sounds like a reason for inclusion. But why are there two lists? I don't see why "founding experiments" should be separate. --Michael C. Price talk 23:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

::I don't know what you mean by "founding experiments". RockMagnetist (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

::Oh, you mean History of quantum mechanics#Founding experiments. No, it probably should not be separate, but for now it might be useful because it is much shorter. At least now there aren't two lists in the same article! RockMagnetist (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OR

Some of this timeline has the look of original research, with almost all of the references being primary (carried to an absurd extreme in the entry for Edward Raymond Andrew). It needs references from secondary sources. RockMagnetist (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

File:First Journal of Science logo.png See User:Guy vandegrift/Timeline of quantum mechanics (abridged). An abridged version this article has been accepted in Wikiversity:First Journal of Science. Ordinarily a submission precedes acceptance, but the copyright license allows me to accept without submission. Instead of wasting my time trying to publicize this journal, I consider all 5 million articles in Wikipedia as having already been submitted. Congratulations editors, you were one in about a million, chosen as one of three articles for the "zeroth" (mockup) edition of this brand new journal. Please contact me if you are interested in submitting another article, perhaps with your name in the byline as the editor of an abridged version of another WP article.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

21st century

I think the selection there is quite strange and uneven: I've removed the recent Microsoft experiment Majorana 1: the published article reports progress towards building a system that's expected to host Majorana quasiparticles, but states that they don't have conclusive evidence for that. To me, that's not a milestone of quantum physics.

The 2014 result by Hanson's group is nice, though it was mischaracterized as "error-free" teleportation, which it wasn't (fidelity about 77%), but I think it's not a milestone in itself (other unconditional teleportation schemes have been performed before with light), but it was an important step to their Bell experiments a year later.

Then the list mentions "2007-2010: Aspect, Clauser, and Zeilinger progress towards the resolution of the non-locality aspect of quantum theory", but neither Clauser nor Aspect did any work on this in the 21st century (they received the Wolf prize for work done decade earlier), and Zeilinger did his definite work on this a few years later. I think both this and the 2014 entry for Delft should be replaced with one on the three loophole-free Bell tests performed in 2015:

: 2015 ‐ The first loophole-free Bell tests are performed by three independent teams, the first lead by Ronald Hanson and Bas Hensen at TU Delft, the second led by Sae Woo Nam and Krister Shalm at NIST, and the third by Anton Zeilinger and Marissa Giustina at the University of Vienna. This confirms the predictions of quantum mechanics and rules out any local-realistic description of nature {{doi|10.1063/PT.3.3039}}. The 2015 experiments are the culmination of a series of experiments on this topic started by John Clauser in the 1970s and significantly advanced by Alain Aspect in the 1980s. Clauser, Aspect, and Zeilinger share the Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 for their results [https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/summary/ nobel.org].

I think these experiments, stretching from the 1970 to 2015 do represent an important milestone and should be part of the time line. In my view the length of the quest gives further weight to the 2015 results, which is why I propose to mention Clauser and Aspect as well (and also because they then shared the Nobel prize with Zeilinger). Comments? --Qcomp (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:I've implemented the edit as suggested.--Qcomp (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I think there are some 21st-century-breakthroughs worth mentioning:

Any thought or comments? --Qcomp (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)