Talk:History of classical field theory

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

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.

Untitled

Hi. This is your student editor. My thoughts on this page are that it's mostly good. You still need an into of some sort, and to cite properly, but I know you know that. In the background section, you have "(up to a sign)", which I would maybe point out should include "and a constant". I know this is obvious, but many non-physicists wouldn't know about it. Similarly, you say "force per unit [mass/charge/current]". Bracketing units is a common physics convention, but doesn't really belong in sentences so much as equations. I'd recommend removing the brackets and saying "mass, charge, or current" instead. Good luck! Penrose Delta (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is your second student editor. This page is fantastic in terms of Wiki cosmetics, spellings and grammar. It is also phenomenal in terms of the historical/scientific account of a cool physics construct. I have some brief comments about the aim of your work and if it accomplishes what you set out to do. Currently, this article is scientifically rigorous and historically sound but it is also difficult to follow because of how rigorous it is. At places, the article reads more as a scientific treatment of field theory instead of a cohesive and complete historical account. That being said, I appreciate and admire the rigor of your work, and I am aware that it is intended for the informed reader. I would do the following to palliate this article for those readers who have not had the good fortune of being introduced to basic physics. Provide a brief introduction of what field theory is in a quick intro section of your article. I would also link a lot of the field theory-related articles on Wikipedia itself. Currently, the article starts off as a mesh of history and physics, which is great for someone who knows enough physics, but I assume most Wikipedia readers will not have the proficiency required to follow the article smoothly. Therefore, a brief primer of the field itself will be a good way to guide the reader through. Second, I would add some history of the field itself. Your account of the field makes it sound like field theory is an integral component of physics (which it is!). So if you provide some general history of physics and then delicately introduce the history of field theory, this article will be complete. It is already a fantastic article, and if you changed nothing it would still be great. My comments are only meant to make it even better. Best of luck. Sumervaid (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cnancarrow. Peer reviewers: Sumervaid.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review

This seems to be a well written article, I have tagged it so that a expert can check it for possible errors, but otherwise good job. Dysklyver 13:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial intelligence

Where are the contributions of today's writers the formula for A1. you talking about history but where are today's contributions. A1 has been around so young. History did not teach it countousness 71.207.231.52 (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with this article

@Johnjbarton: as you are interested in history of physics articles and worked on action at a distance, could you provide some feedback about this article? I think it could be merged into either the History of physics, Field (physics) or the history of electromagnetism. If we keep it, it would be better to have it as history of field theory and not about the philosophy of field theory. Do you think there is anything of value here? ReyHahn (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly not a history of philosophy. Not a single philosopher's historical views on fields are discussed. I also don't think that an article with this title would be notable on its own. I suppose there are a few references out there on the topic but we don't have them and I wouldn't go looking: these "what is reality?" debates can't come to any conclusions since they are not science. At best such a topic might make a section in philosophy of science or ontology.

The article is a collection of history bits related to field theory. In this is overlaps history of quantum field theory but also history of electromagnetism and aether theories. But it also is not really a history of "field theory" in that such theory is never described nor its historical evolution traced. Instead the topic seems to be some physical phenomena that lead to field theory.

A history of classical field theory to complement history of quantum field theory or moving the latter into history of field theory and adding classical field theory would be nice. The easy first step would boldly move this article to "history of field theory" as a partial fix and statement of direction. Such a topic is notable (per history of quantum field theory if nothing else) and missing an article. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just performed the partial fix (move to History of field theory). I also deleted a whole section on Unruh effect that did not add anything new to field theory. Any of the sections in this article can be erased, so I guess writing a history of classical field theory would be nice, but I am having a hard time to find sources.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whittaker "A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity", would cover the classical field theory. This also looks promising. Cao, T. (2019). The Rise of Classical Field Theory. In Conceptual Developments of 20th Century Field Theories (pp. 21-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108566926.004 Johnjbarton (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not seem to have immediate access to Cao's book. I got my hand into a pdf but the history section is empty fro some reason, maybe I can find it in some local library. If you have access to it, let me know if it worth it.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes worth it. I found it via Wikipedia library > Cambridge > Search (Conceptual Developments of 20th Century Field Theories) > 2 - The Rise of Classical Field Theory.

Starts a little slow but covers everything up to Lorentz in qualitative way. Kind of an anti-Whittaker with not an equation in sight and fairly brief. Not an in depth academic study as its purpose is just background for the rest of the book. In all these ways its very suitable to your purpose.

The work has a fair amount of editorial viewpoint but they mesh with everything else I've read. Again this is an advantage because the viewpoints provide a logic to the story beyond X did Y in 19ZZ.

The main issue might be the background assumed. I think if you did not know the names, times, and physics, then it might be a murky business. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just got my hands on it. It is ok. We just have to avoid all of the philosophical mumbling or early paragraphs. I will try to work on it when I have the time. A History of classical field theory article sounds much better (does that include GR?).--ReyHahn (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think those philosophical mumblings that reflect the philosophy and or mumblings of the time are history. GR would definitely be classical field theory. Such a topic might be a better goal and invest any effort on the quantum aspect on the existing quantum article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of this history covers a bit of the transition era, Weyl's gauge theory work on gravitation + electromagnetism. It's mainly valuable as a reference for the profound impact of gauge (application of invariance) on field theory. The pre vs post gauge theory boundary is almost as important as classical vs quantum. But another angle is the impact of QM on Weyl: before QM he had a unification that failed and after QM he had a revolutionary concept.

O’Raifeartaigh, Lochlainn, and Norbert Straumann. "Gauge theory: Historical origins and some modern developments." Reviews of Modern Physics 72.1 (2000): 1. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The development of fields as a physical object..."

(I guess this phrase "The development of fields as a physical object..." is left over from the philosophy angle. It's fine to describe Faraday's view on fields as objects (his view was more complex as I recall) but this way makes the assertion of facts not known.)

The phrase "The development of fields as a physical object" made me want to point out one aspects of the history of fields that we should be looking out for in references: in what ways are the scalar fields of "action at a distance" theories like Newtonian gravity different from Faraday/Maxwellian field, aether theories, or quantum fields? I believe most sources will avoid this topic so it is difficult to find references; some references on this topic will try to sort out which one is "real". Based on everything I have read these are just different approximations suitable for different applications but I don't have a reference. Having this perspective would avoid claims about the more sophisticated field theories being "correct" and simpler ones "wrong". Johnjbarton (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I went for it and trimmed with razor. Some traces remain. I am not sure what you mean by the difference between them or by scalar fields? You have read more about this than me so correct me if I am wrong, but I think action at a distance theories enter in two categories (a) bodies being able to interact without a medium (b) the action being instantaneous. Netwonian gravity and Coulomb's electric field are vector field theories that includes both aspects (a) and (b). Maxwellian electromagnetism did at first resolve (b) but could not figure out (a) due to invariance problems (this was solved by special relativity). Aether theories attempted to solve (a) for electromagnetism and to solve (a) and (b) for Newtonian gravity. General relativity solved (a) and (b) for gravity. Also I agree with you, all of them are valid (caveat the aether theories) under the right approximations.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes very clear.

The aether theories have multiple aspects, the simplest being "a medium". So they act like a hypothesis for (a) that never panned out. Classical fields after relativity just gave up on a medium; quantum fields eventually redefined the question by sending photons to do the interaction. I guess classically (a) has two parts: 1) how can remote objects exchange energy without an intervening medium? and 2) how can energy be transmitted in space without a medium? The second one was an important point of discussion by Faraday (See the Hesse refs in action at a distance). QM folds these two questions back into one: the only way to detect energy in space is to add objects. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filling gaps

I have filled the gaps with the sources at hand, specially what happened, before, during and closely after Newton. Also Kelvin's idea. However the sources at hand are too focused on the EM field and barely on the gravitational field. More importantly none of tne sources so far want to discuss the concept of the field as in heat, fluid dynamics and elasticity where the concept of field is crucially important. I am stopping for now. ReyHahn (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]