![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Given the importance of the topic, not being the highest, it is sufficiently technical in its description, compared with other articles such as Quantum Chromodynamics. It has a variety of sources, and as such, I have seen it fit to remove a nearly decade-old banner at the top. Any objections will be heard; this decision may be reverted for any reason if deemed fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiralSource ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Very nice, but the article doesn't actually say what an instanton is. Anyone with enough knowledge of theoretical physics want to take a crack at putting some text in this article? Erik Carson
Followup: Ask and ye shall receive. Erik Carson 19:57, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)
U(1) doesn't have instantons. . No Abelian gauge theory has instantons. Phys 20:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
The section "Quantum Theories" starts out with "In such theories" but there's nothing to specify exactly which theories are being talked about. 68.134.202.201 ( talk) 01:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)NormDrez
Just put the "m" relating to the mass of the particle where needed in the part about Instanton in Quantum Mechanics
The WKB expression for the probability for the particle to tunnel should be real. The i should be replaced with a 2.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/c/7/5c719dcaa6e7112fb76f501b5f57a598.png —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.136.90.228 ( talk) 13:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Maybe someone could also add at least a note that instantons also exist on noncommutative spacetimes, as well as for supersymmetric gauge theories. And mentioning the ADHM construction would also be good. In particular, its interesting that in the noncommutative case there CAN exist U(1) instantons.
I deleted the factor of two in front of the cosine in the proof of the BPS-bound.
Matrix1329 11:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible for the introduction to explain the concept in a way that relies on neither mathematics nor physics PhD-level knowledge? This article is as good as gibberish to anyone without that knowledge. Like, it could all be a giant joke, and we wouldn't know. If it's not explainable in terms nonphysicists will understand, it simply isn't, but in that case is it really notable for Wikipedia's purposes? 134.10.18.182 ( talk) 08:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Not quite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.55.37 ( talk) 13:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's the habit of people who reach a graduate level of education to act elitist about their fields. Physicists, mathematicians, doctors, lawyers, sociologists, you name them, they will try to pretend a person who hasn't spent at least a decade studying their field has no chance of understanding what they're going on about. Here's a start to a layman's definition: http://www.phys.virginia.edu/research/graduateposters/jwm8n_99/whatis.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.38.203.219 ( talk) 13:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
No, my friend, it's not elitism - it's just Wikipdedia. That is, an article written by someone who thinks he knows the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.252.133 ( talk) 12:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused by the author mentioning Minkowski in the quantum mechanics setting. Everything looks like nonrelativistic QM for me. I've nobody objects, I will try to rewrite the text, getting rid of Minkovsky completely and taking about real and imaginary time. Fabian Hassler ( talk) 07:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Could anybody explain why Note 1 is included? In field theory equations of motion tend not to refer to translations, rotations or oscillations. GaramondQ ( talk) 14:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Both in the initial summary of the topic and in a later section (Further studies) a few lines have been recently added:
"On 1 October 2023, astronomers proposed a new, more comprehensive, view of the cosmos, and which includes all objects in the universe, and suggested that the universe may have begun with instantons, and may be a black hole."
This being current ongoing research, I don't think it should appear in the summary of the article, and possibly not at all. It seems to me advertisement of someone's research rather than informative material. MatthiasCarosi ( talk) 12:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)