Talk:Master equation

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Introduction[edit]

I changed it because a system modelled by the master equation is not in exactly one state at a given time, but a probabilistic combination of them. The former is just a special case of the latter when all the probability mass is on one point and the master equation does not preserve that property. --Ricardohz (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this interpretation is confusing, especially since the article focuses primarily on the application of master equations to classical systems (there's other wikipedia articles on quantum master equations). The notion of a classical system being in a "probabilistic combination of states at a given time" is, at the very least, uncommon. The change should therefore be reverted and aligned to the first sentence in the introduction ("describing the [...] probability of a system to occupy [some state]" or "probability of finding a system in a certain state", ...) -- 2001:4CA0:0:F230:B49E:9A01:B8F6:F95E (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous[edit]

the chapman-kolmogorov equation is important enough to be by itself.

Rewritten a little, to indicate that master equations in physics are only a subset of Chapman-Kolmogorov equations. The focus of interest in the objects is also rather different.

IMO, the two articles should not be merged. -- Jheald 21:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just skimmed the new articles, I agree. I think you can safely/unilaterally remove the merge tags, I don't think anyone will complain.linas 22:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it called "MASTER"-equation? -- Ehsel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsel (talk • contribs) 15:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, it seems to be like the God particle -- pure made-for-TV science nomenclature. 84.227.227.112 (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard also "balance equation". Might be nice begin transitioning from "master" to "balance" or some other term. Wefatherley (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non Markovian Master Equations[edit]

The literature often refers to Non Markovian Master Equations (see e.g. arXiv:quant-ph/0312103), while the definition in this article is clearly Markovian. Might there be a more general definition of a Master Equation, or does the descriptor "non Markovian" make it a different term, as in the Quantum Liouville Equation

Cederal 13:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC) s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.188.57.131 (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ME is still Markovian if the transition rates at time t depend explicitly on t, i.e. dP/dt=A(t) P. In that case the Markov property P(x0,t0|x1,t1; x2,t2) = P(x0,t0|x1,t1) for t0>t1>t2 holds. Furthermore, the non-Markovian integro differential equation does not prevent $P_{i}$ from becoming negative.133.65.54.177 (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fokker Planck is a generalisation?[edit]

Is the FP equation really a generalisation of the Master equation? Obviously it deals with continuous things but there are systems where the FP equation is inaccurate while the ME covers everything, though they are obviously discrete in nature (chemical networks for instance). Perhaps the comment could be clarified so make it clear what the generalisation is in regards to, as someone might think that the FP equation is ALWAYS superior to the ME, which isn't the case. If someone wants examples I can give paper references illustrating this. AlphaNumeric (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of indices[edit]

I tried to make the explanation tighter and clearer, while still addressing the "naive" concern about the order of the indices in a user-friendly way. 84.227.227.112 (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done! yoyo (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples, structure, merge?[edit]

The section titled "Examples of master equations" unfortunately lacks any! It does point us to classical physics, saying it has "many" examples. And it does discuss two generalisations at length, with the first - the Lindblad equation - also discussed more extensively than it is in the (more appropriate) section on "Quantum master equations".

Please consider:

restructuring this article to either list or discuss "Generalisations" in a separate section; and
whether this article should also merge the content of the Quantum master equation article, to reduce redundant repetition.

(Should "reduce redundant repetition" be a WP style guideline "RRR"? ;-) ) yoyo (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]