Talk:Potential energy surface

Problematic

The article diverges. It starts with chemistry and nuclear physics, diverges to topography, topology, then maps, then Morse, then doesn't come back to chemistry and nuclear physics by providing any clearer picture. Thereafter it jumps out to implications and speculations without reattaching to that missing clearer picture. The article looks like someones personal notes, and needs some mathematically minded person's eyes in order to be readable. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 10:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, eh... such as "low topological position" counterparts "low energy" (in general, potential, nuclear, or otherwise). An image might also be helpful. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 10:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I have started to do some work on this article. I also found that it jumps around a bit. In particular, I have removed the following two paragraphs:
- There is a natural correspondence between potential energy surfaces as they exist (as polynomial surfaces) and their application in potential theory, which associates and studies harmonic functions in relation to these surfaces.
- For example, the Morse potential and the simple harmonic potential well are common one-dimensional potential energy surfaces (potential energy curves) in applications of quantum chemistry and physics.

AussieScientist (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imprecision in the text

In the first sentence it is implied that the "adiabatic" approximation is equivalent to the "born-oppenheimer" approximation. This is not accurate.

To the best of my knowledge:

Adiabatic: neglection of the nuclear kinetic energy from the hamiltonian. Born-Oppenheimer: complete neglection of the nuclear-electron motion coupling terms from the molecular hamiltonian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.196.213.182 (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed references to the Born-Oppenheimer approximation because I don't think this helps someone understand the concept of a PES. I felt it was not a core issue here. AussieScientist (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion: Energy landscape -> Potential energy surface

The two concepts of Energy landscape -> Potential energy surface are very similar. The main difference seems to be the community using the term (landscape being mostly used by the biochem end of thing, and surface beig used by the physicists). Would it make sencce to merge them and then clarify the different use cases in an application section or is there a relevant distinction that I've missed? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 08:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]