Jump to content

Talk:Potential energy surface

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

Problematic

[edit]

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]

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

Imprecision in the text

[edit]

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]

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