Talk:Klein paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Physics because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{Physics}} template, removing {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Give Credit Where Credit Is Due

While the authors of the recent publications did explain what the significance of the spurious wave is, they cannot possibly be said to have "resolved" this paradox. To resolve a paradox requires that the paradox should still be confusing at the time of publication.

Historically, the Klein paradox was important in demonstrating that a single-particle Dirac equation is inconsistent, and antiparticles are really required. This is its main historical purpose. It was resolved by Dirac, Klein, Heisenberg and whoever else did second quantization way back when. The recent publication is an analysis of the significance of Klein's solution. While it is interesting, and worth citing, it is absurd to say that the paper "resolved" the paradox just because the word "resolution" appears in the title, with the meaning in "the resolution of my monitor is 760 by 1200". Likebox 02:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)