Talk:Atomic, molecular, and optical physics

Are we duplicating what is done on the optical physics page?

Optical physics has its own page on Wikipedia, so why do we have a page here with a little bit of duplicated information about optical physics lumped in with atomic and molecular physics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinlye (talk • contribs) 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead with the merge of the optical physics page to here because of the duplicate content. -- AquaDTRS (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement Drive

A related topic, Astrophysics is currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Come and support the nomination or comment on it.--Fenice 07:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Break and merge

I suggest breaking this article in three and to merge it with their specific articles counterpart, Atomic physics, Optical Physics and Molecular Physics.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς)

I agree with Headbomb, this article should merge with their respected articles. Otherwise, the term "AMO physics" confuses the reader. Is that (AMO Physics) even a field? If it is? Then what happen to Atomic physics, Optical physics and Molecular physics? Why do they have a separate articles?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.145.81 (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AMO physics is a distinct term for the field. For example, the work within laser-matter interactions involves all 3 areas. I'll get a few references from the literature to show usage of the term. Within AMO the topics are closely linked with scientists frequently using techniques within all 3 (non-linear optical autocorrelation using an atomic/molecular target for example). I would recommend the reverse solution, the three subtopics being merged in due to their small size. I will also try and beef up with reliable sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on an amalgamated version on my userspace for the moment. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current form makes it tempting to break and merge. If its re-written (and probably moved to a new name? not sure - perhaps Atomic and molecular optics or Atomic and molecular photonics for compactness?), then it could certainly be kept as one article.-- F = q(E + v × B) 14:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The field itself is known as Atomic, molecular, and optical physics and all the reliable sources group them as a combination [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] etc. All 3 sub-disciplines are inter-related; i.e All 3 sub-disciplines are intertwined with related methods etc between them. Hence I don't think we should split the articles up. I think merging the content is a better way to centrally improve the overall content on AMO. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I didn't imply it should be broken up.

For those that haven’t already seen, currently a new transformation of the article is under construction here, written by IRWolfie-. What do others think? It looks like a promising start, though there are a few bits redundant:

First paragraph in section History and developments is not-needed as its just a statement of the scientific process,
Much of the lead in section Atomic physics seems a bit wordy, a statement of what atomic physics refers to. Reduction to a few words/couple of sentences at most with a link is probably plenty.

Right now I'm busy with more coursework, but will keep track of things here to see how it develops.-- F = q(E + v × B) 14:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should explain that the version on my userpage is mostly what would be present from amalgamating the separate articles together. (It contains all of the relevant content from Atomic Physics Molecular physics and Optical Physics. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just added my opinion. I have added the external links you provided to the article by the way. -- F = q(E + v × B) 14:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mark all concerned pages as being up for possible merge. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the original proposal here to split this article and merge the information into the three separate articles. I think the Molecular Physics one is Molecular physics. There are separate journals for these three fields and I think they should remain separate. --Bduke (Discussion) 17:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you check again. The journals are usaully not separate. For example here is one of the most prestigious journals in the field: [6]. Here is the IOP Journal of Physics B [7]. Hence I suggested merging all the articles into this one. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am more interested in Molecular Physics than the others, but there is a journal called Molecular Physics (journal) and there is a strong overlap of Molecular Physics with theoretical and computational chemistry. This suggests to me that Molecular physics, at least, should remain separate. I suggest you are trying to railroad this discussion. You have contributed too much above. There is no consensus for the merge you suggest. --Bduke (Discussion) 17:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My whole reason for posting on the wikiproject talk page rather than being WP:BOLD was to try and gauge what the consensus was. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone working in Physics, I'd say that these three fields are often clumped together as AMO physics, especially in the research context. I think it makes sense to have a common article exploring this connection, with links to detailed articles on each of the three individual fields. Just my $0.02, I'll try to get sources on this as and when I find time. SPat ^talk 19:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My implications above were the same as SPat. Also IRWolfie- and me have added sources to the article - they do not necessarily draw any line between these fields, nor necessarily unify them. Atomic, molecular and optical physics are frequently explained collectively together. Many external links for institutions and research do indeed treat AMO as one field, even if they can be treated as separate fields.

This article should be the connective article describing how the components of AMO intertwine. As said before - this article should be re-written to explain how they overlap, I'm not in favour of breaking this article up and feeding into the separate articles.

Although I'm not in favour of pulling the separate articles (which explain each part in detail) into this one. This article may become potentially overloaded and will then require another break up. There is no loss of continuity to have an article which summarizes a broad field, then other linked articles which carry on to explain the content more fully. Isn't this summary style?

So really - I agree with all of you to different extents. Again - I'm not an expert on the subject or even in physics (yet), just adding my opinion, not sure if it will even lead to consensus...-- F = q(E + v × B) 23:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My main motive for merging was for technical reasons: It provides an easier way to try and manage this collection of articles which are currently in a bad state. It seems more natural to have the articles together centrally for improvement and then spin off appropriate sections into articles as they become large. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion on how to be bold about this: Just concentrate on this article first. For now, you should overlap your version (when the sections are filled in and finished) with this current article - strengthening it to its title, and transferring content from the other articles to here without re-directing them yet (your intension?).

If they become completely redundant with the scope of this one - then people will realize that this article is suited to incorporate all of AMO into this one and only article. Over time they will either become stubs to expand later, or decay and die. But keep for now while working on this article at least (I can't see how it’s harder otherwise). It’s actually less work to do it this way, because the only operations are copying, pasting and writing centred on this article. No-one will oppose you if the articles are not merged at this stage, and perhaps even not oppose this suggestion in general (?).

So in essence I agree with a pseudo-merge: transfer of content without re-directs, leaving the expansion of the other articles for later if any. Is this ok? =| -- F = q(E + v × B) 11:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good plan. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do plan to set it into motion don't you? Good luck, I'll see where I can chip in. =) -- F = q(E + v × B) 17:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so, I don't have the time today though. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be able to change the article substiantially in roughly two weeks time or less. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I'll keep watch every now and then. =) -- F=q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 00:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I will generally tidy the article, then since I have access to most of the books in the futher reading section, I will go through each adding relevant information. After doing so I will further refine the text by referencing to the peer-reviewed reviews in the field (slow and steady wins the race). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great start. Let me know which sources I added and that you happen not to have access to, and I'll add those citations to the article as it continues to grow.-- F=q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 20:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

The history section in this article is severely lacking. I think what we need there is an overview of the history of AMO over the past few decades (which was when people started clumping them together). As it stands, it's just an overview of old atomic theory. Can anyone suggest references which talk about the development of AMO over the past ~50 years? SPat ^talk 18:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is in development, and the History section is (slightly) less important compared to the actual content. In most of the sources listed, there will be snippets of historical info (though as said not neccersarily AMO as one field), but for now I'd say that section is fine.-- F=q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 21:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started it, then I went to a conference this week, I'm going to keep expanding it over the coming weeks. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lede as it stands misses the main point about AMO; the subjects are actually not distinct but interlinked or indistinguishable a lot of the time. For example, if someone was looking at the the electron dynamics of atoms in response to a laser, which field do you classify it as? Where phenomena exist in the case of atoms and also in the case of molecules, which subfield do you put that in? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the refs, but couldn't add page numbers alone, its just easier to look at the whole chapter. Is this fine now? Btw IRWolfie-, in the References section I updated some of the sources you added, so please say if I accidently mixed something up (though checked many times and they should be correct).

About the lead, there is already emphasis about the subject as one - in the later sections of the article, so would you move those types of statements up to the lead? I'll try now to tweak the lead using the sources I have.F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 07:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried extending the scope of the intro - its not that brilliant, and can be extended later of course. F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑_ic_i 08:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atomic, molecular, and optical physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305214247/http://jila.colorado.edu/research_highlights to http://jila.colorado.edu/research_highlights

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Atomic, molecular, and optical physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]