Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a235b7b03e60cf43

Jump to content

Talk:Atomic coherence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Summary of atomic coherence.

[edit]

I reverted an edit that described atomic coherence as if it were something a single atom can have: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomic_coherence&diff=prev&oldid=1184041472 I don't believe it is correct. The paragraph cited no sources.

I know of two kinds of "atomic coherence" which are systems of atoms with phase relationship among their states. One system consists of atom with similar transverse momentum used in eg double slit diffraction. The other system consists of atoms excited simultaneously to the same excited level vs a coherent laser. I believe the addition was referring to the latter form. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I suppose that nuclear spin states of atoms is third system of atomic coherence: Barnes, Katrina, et al. "Assembly and coherent control of a register of nuclear spin qubits." Nature Communications 13.1 (2022): 2779. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Building up the body of the article before the intro.

[edit]

@Royaready I see you are trying to improve this article. Here is a suggestion: please build up the article, then summarize it. The intro should be a summary see WP:LEAD. Otherwise as time goes on the intro is just a really long disorganized article. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Johnjbarton thanks, will do. I think the summary just needed a little more context. Cheers, Royaready (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply