This page is for discussion related to the development and improvement of the Physics article. As a result of a noticeable decrease in quality of the article it was decided to create a dedicated sub page where the entire contents could be reviewed and improved without the problems of working on a 'live' page which suffers from constant flux. Other editors have suggested that I act as a form of a secretary. The purpose of this is to add a structure to the process, setting up points for discussion, allowing discussion to take place, calling for consensus after an appropriate amount of time, helping to negotiate and reach consensus, then setting up another point for discussion. Editors who want to join this process are more than welcome - the more people we have involved in the process the more valuable the outcome.
The revised plan is for editors to freely edit the development article, and to post anything they want to discuss in this talk page. Once all areas have been discussed, and before the contents are copied across to the main article, a specific amount of time can be set by for A.O.B. to allow past decisions & consensus positions to be reviewed if editors feel strongly about something (and feel it wasn't given fair hearing the first time around - or if the editor wasn't around for the specific discussion the first time around).
Once the final version is completed then it can be copied across to the main article. At that point it can then be freely edited, At this poiand the wiki process will take over on this work. The quality may well decrease again, but at least there will be a consensus version to compare with, and editors can at that point bring discussion on the main talk page as to whether the changes are better than what was decided upon here, or worse. Hopefully the majority of the work done on this project will remain intact, but obviously the final version produced here should not be permanently held in place irrespective of changes made by other editors.
To ensure that development progresses in an orderly manner there are a few key points that must be kept in mind:
Consensus is the key rule by which this process lives on. Only through this method will we arrive at a result which is going to stand up to the test and scrutiny of time. Give and take is required by all.
Editing on any section is permitted, and any possible conflicts about a particular section should be discussion on this talk page and be remedied via the normal wikipedia practice.
Above and beyond civility, a friendly and co-operative environment is encouraged. Ultimately we are all here voluntarily, and all just to try and construct a HQ encyclopedia - if folks start getting worked up then we just need to chillout. A negative environment is neither as constructive nor all that nice a place to work as a positive and friendly one. The use of smilies is encouraged. !
I have placed a revised lead section on the article using some of the changes suggested by Fill. This is hopefully very simple to grasp, and technically accurate. Krea17:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is not best to begin the page with a photo and a caption that most people will not understand (I am a graduate student in English literature who avidly reads popular science books)? My logic went like this: I thought hydrogen usually had one electron in the s-1 orbital, so I drew the conclusion that that box would be the brightest. Obviously, I am totally misunderstanding something. Awadewit12:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture itself is perfect in a physics article, but perhaps the caption should be reworded. The lowest energy electron in a hydrogen atom is 1s, but if it is excited, it can be 2s, for example. How about "The first few orbitals for electrons of different energy and angular momentum in a hydrogen atom, shown as cross-sections with color-coded probability density." Would that be any clearer?
The lead, if it were styled in the manner of other articles, would simply be too long. The introduction section is really the equivalent of a lead in other articles. Krea01:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you mention the bit about "excited"? I still don't get it from the new caption. Are you saying this is an excited hydrogen atom, with its electron "most likely" to be in 3d? Awadewit00:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, the article is nice, but for an article of this size, the lede should be significantly larger. It should be in the order of two to four paragraphs. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)23:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that for an article of this size, the lead will become too big. I've made a rough attempt, building on the outline suggested by Ancheta Wis both here and in the introduction section, and you can see how large it is! Krea05:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody explain to me how can the equation p=mv (in the picture at the bottom of the lead page) be considered a statement of Newton`s first law? Dauto15:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first line is not merely a definition. It encapsulates the experiments of Galileo.
I got the equation set from p. 23, Sander Bais, The Equations ISBN 0-674-01967-9. It was so clear to me that I put it in the encyclopedia. But I can understand why you might want to see more.
Here is the classical statement of Newton's first law
A "Unless acted upon by an external force,
B an object at rest tends to stay at rest and
C an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction."
Which when I first heard it, remains in my mind as
"Objects in motion tend to remain in motion; objects at rest tend to remain at rest."
A relevant note is from R.S. Westfall, biographer of Newton, Never at Rest (referring to Newton's mind, which was never at rest).
I think we can agree that A about is about Newton's 2nd law. So let's leave that for now.
Similarly, I think that we can leave B, as this is something Aristotle might have said.
That leaves C. The p is the inertia of some body. The conjoint quantity mv is Newton's take on the components of the inertia of that body, for which he is indebted to Galileo. So how did Newton see through Aristotle's B. The way that Galileo got past the state of rest was to set up an experiment which minimized friction. He used a very smooth, round, hard bronze ball, which he rolled along a length of molding, lined with parchment, which he polished until it was very smooth. This got rid of the friction acting on the ball. The set of experiments Galileo performed convinced him that the horizontal component of the ball's motion was independent of the vertical component, which we encode with the vector notation v and p. This is documented in Galileo, 1638, Two New Sciences[2]. Salviati is Galileo's proxy when speaking about the horizontal motion of the bronze ball being independent of the vertical motion, and how the ball would roll indefinitely in the horizontal direction. Now it took Newton to see that the vertical motion of the ball would be indefinite as well, and he has a diagram of an artificial satellite to show how the motion of a ball under the influence of an inverse square law would be an ellipse. But that is line 2 of the picture. Line 3 of the picture has the principle of equivalence in it, so there is a lot packed into those three equations.
--Ancheta Wis19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^R.S.Westfall, The Construction of Modern Science ISBN 0-521-29295-6 p. 20
^I highly recommend Stephen Hawking's edition On the Shoulders of Giants ISBN 0-7624-1348-4 which reprints the relevant work of Johannes Kepler, Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein if you want to read more. It can be purchased in parts, so you can pick up the Galileo section alone, if that is all you can afford.
I remain unconvinced. I see the first law as a spcial case of the second. But even assuming I`m just being dense, it seems inapropriate to have such non-standard view of what the Newton`s first law is, right there at the begining of the article. Just my opinionDauto05:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used to think that too. But if you read Galileo, the importance of equation 1) becomes more apparent. After all, it was 2009 years between Aristotle and Principia. It is not for nothing that Galileo is the father of Physics. But re-reading Sander Bais, I see that he refers to 'Newton's Dynamical Equations'. Might that be a better caption. Bais also inserts Universal Gravitation as a line 4. --Ancheta Wis09:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am searching thru Principia for the diagram of the artificial satellite's orbit, which I propose putting in the Applications section of the article. --Ancheta Wis 19:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Naturally it's in Wikipedia: Newton's cannonball. I continue to seek the pg. num. --Ancheta Wis02:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure the cannonball picture is in Cajori's translation of Principia, but I do not have ready access to Cajori. --Ancheta Wis09:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newton's first law is indeed very important; in a way more so than the other two. What it really expresses is the framework within which the other two rules apply. It says that one can construct a reference frame in which bodies at rest and linear motion remain so. In this frame N2L and N3L also apply. Of course, from here we can ask deeper questions (one's which lead people to see N1L as a special case of N2L), but I'll leave that for now. As far as I understand it, I also don't quite see how p=mv represents N1L. p=mv in all frames, and so this statement says nothing about the construction of these special, inertial frames (which is where SR gets its name), which is what N1L is really about. Sorry, Ancheta, but I think I must have missed the point of your argument: what is the significance of p=mv that I am missing? Krea12:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the association of equation 1) with N1L and follow Bais, retaining it as a definition of p. The caption follows Bais' denotation as 'Newton's dynamical equations'. --Ancheta Wis16:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beginning with a multi-dimensionsal universe example is again a bit mind-stretching for many people. Even the words "spatial" and "temporal" are a bit difficult (sadly, I know this from teaching endless sections of freshman composition). I know you link them, but I have feeling that readers don't click on links as often as we might like to them to. Who are you imagining is the audience of this page? I am thinking high-school students or early college. Awadewit12:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am reminded of a comment that Feynman made in class once: 'the 3-D nature of space is the reason for the form of Newton's law of gravitation' -- he stated that if our world had higher dimension, the inverse-square law would not be true. Krea probably has a citation for this fact. --Ancheta Wis18:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doubting the fact, I am questioning the rhetoric - of beginnging with such a difficult to comprehend fact. (I have also heard Feynman was a notoriously difficult teacher.) Awadewit01:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was a student of Feynman and can attest that he bent over backward to make his teaching accessible to his audience (he would say things in different ways to different people, depending on what they could understand). He won the Oersted Medal for excellence in teaching, by the way. --Ancheta Wis11:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between "general properties of nature" (I suppose you mean things like the "law of conservation of matter" or something like that?) and the "properties of certain objects" needs to be made more clearly - I would give it its own paragraph. Does studying objects lead to the discovery of general properties? Awadewit12:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; this is the history of physics. The atomic theory was proposed thousands of years ago and suffered scorn as recently as 1900, by Ernst Mach. Now that we can image atoms and have waged wars with their power, we have more concrete evidence for the reality of some of the costructs of physics.
I think the scientific method should be mentioned earlier so that it is clear physics is a hard science - mention it in the first paragraph right up front. Awadewit12:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the evolution controversy demonstrates, it is imperative to define scientific "theory." I would also explain "falsifiability." Awadewit12:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a link is one approach to the definition, so as to concentrate our efforts on the article.
I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to explain the scientific method. I quote from an NSF study: "NSF surveys have asked respondents to explain in their own words what it means to study something scientifically. Based on their answers, it is possible to conclude that most Americans (two-thirds in 2001) do not have a firm grasp of what is meant by the scientific process.[27] This lack of understanding may explain why a substantial portion of the population believes in various forms of pseudoscience. . . . In 2001, both the NSF survey and the Eurobarometer asked respondents questions designed to test their knowledge of how an experiment is conducted and their understanding of probability-two important aspects of scientific literacy.[28] Only 43 percent of Americans and 37 percent of Europeans answered the experiment question correctly. Both groups did better with probability: 57 percent of Americans and 69 percent of Europeans answered that question correctly." [1]Awadewit01:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the "Scientific method" section can be condensed, specifically how physicists use other fields' tools. There is also some repetition regarding experimentalists vs. theorists. Awadewit12:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is because of the areas which physics has addressed are more amenable to quantitative approaches than other areas. - be explicit - explain Awadewit12:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the comment about history of physics above. Atoms can be viewed as mass points, allowing the geometrization of physics. --Ancheta Wis18:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am trying to think of lay readers here - "mass points" and "geometrization" do not help people understand unless you explain those terms. Awadewit01:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A point is an 'undefined term' from Euclid's geometry. A point mass is an abstraction to help solve the problem of the motion of that mass. Newton and Galileo used this idea to reason about the motion of bodies, such as balls or planets, using the concepts of geometry. This is geometrization. --Ancheta Wis12:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a large area of research intermediate between physics and mathematics, known as mathematical physics. - why is this sentence repeated verbatim at least twice (if not more) in the article - it is jarring for the reader Awadewit12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Relation to mathematics and the other sciences" is very repetitive and not quite coherent. It also repeats ideas that have already been said. Awadewit12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Philosophical implications" - not fleshed out enough - the first paragraph of the section is more relevant to "history" - the second paragraph is hard to understand unless you already know the quantum issues, etc. - add more or delete Awadewit12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am trying not to comment on small writing issues because this article has obviously not been revised yet for general prose issues, I must mention this sentence: These theories were largely couched in philosophical terms, and never verified by systematic experimental testing as is popular today. - "popular" - it sounds as if the scientific method is a fad Awadewit12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some excellent points are made here.
"Spatial" and "temporal", I agree, should really be replaced with "space" and "time": there is no need for over-complication. Now, the problem is that I don't know of any other general property of nature that can be used as an example. The concept of space and time is understood by anyone, even if only superficially. I think I'll reword that bit to essentially ask "Why don't we live in a 2D world?" but in a more user-friendly way. If you can think of an easier example, let me know and I'll use that instead. The target audience (that I am aiming for) is late primary school onwards (who are interested in physics), so 10+ years old.
Perhaps you mean smart ten-year-olds or even brilliant ten-year-olds? The reason I say this is because the vocabulary and syntax of this article is much too advanced for a ten-year-old. Many of the concepts are also way beyond them. Next time you are at a bookstore, you might go to the children's section and pick up some books labeled "8-12 years." I'm not saying such an article isn't possible, I'm simply saying this isn't it. Sadly, I do not believe that even the bulk of my freshman composition students could understand this article. Awadewit07:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was a little vague! I want a smart 10 year old to be able to get the jist of the basic principles of physics - not to understand the the more technical bits. I want parts of the article to be of value to everyone aged between 10 to 18. This is a tough ask, but I am trying to aim for contraints of comprehension that are due only to the concepts themselves, not how they are worded. As it is, you're right: it's a mess and it needs work, but we're working at it! Krea00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I'll try to do that. Your question is actually a lot deeper than it first appears - I'll have to give that some more thought before I can give a satisfactory answer I'm afraid.
As for the rest of the points you make, I intend to rewrite the sections after "scope and goals", and I'll try to address the points that you make if they are still valid. I think that the scientific method probably should come first: depending on how I structure the rest of the sections, I'll try to do that. Krea02:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The history section sounds more like a history of science than a history of physics. Please explain the history of physics in particular in more detail or explain why the features you have chosen to highlight are important to the history of physics (I suspect it is the latter that is relevant here). Awadewit12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Physics was originally natural philosophy and did not split off from the other sciences until the nineteenth century. Thus astronomy (1543), and even biology (1780) were not separate sciences. --Ancheta Wis23:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say physics was originally natural philosophy, I would say there wasn't even any physics at that time! A lot of different people thought they were doing natural philosophy at the end of the seventeenth century and the beginning of the eighteenth century - Boyle, Hobbes, Locke, Newton, etc. We would not call all of them scientists now nor all of their work science. It would probably be good to mention that what we now call physics was not always considered physics; it would be good to tell the history with more of an eye towards historical context in general. And what I meant by "history of science" was, it seemed like the history were hitting on the greatest discoveries of "science" and not explaining how they contributed to the development of the field of physics; more contextualization is needed in that way, too. Awadewit01:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mention "classical mechanics" for the first time in the "Scientific Revolution" section (as well terms like quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, blackbody radiation...). A lay reader may not be familiar with those terms. Try not to make this page one that would take hours to read due to clicking. Also, think about how difficult some of the pages you are asking people to click to might be. Awadewit12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Classical mechanics' is a term of the twentieth century, during which 'quantum mechanics' emerged. I personally deplore the term c.m., as the topics of physics are not separate; each of the topics is still useful and vital. CM is a limiting case of other theories, for example.
My point here is that the term should be introduced sooner. It is introduced in the "history" section without any description at all. This is a rhetorical point. Awadewit01:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it takes years to learn physics (I'm watching someone do it right now), but the editors of the page must try to introduce the reader to the concepts at some superficial level. My points here are about writing - the editors expect the reader to click - they do not attempt to describe any of the concepts that they feel are central to physics such as classical mechanics or quantum mechanics. While no reader is going to understand physics by reading this page, it is the responsibility of the writers to attempt to explain it to them. What I am attempting to point out is where the editors essentially give up on that. I have read a lot of popular science books on physics and while I know that I will never truly understand physics until I learn all of the math, those authors outline some basic concepts metaphorically or abstractly. The editors of this page can do that as well. Awadewit01:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The History section is non-chronological - why do we go back for thermodynamics, another subfield you might define. Awadewit12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose another technique than strict chronology, taken from the movies: the cross-cut: in this way we can take a specific theme in physics, such as the atomic theory, or electromagnetism, or spectroscopy, etc., and follow it as we would the protagonist in a story. --Ancheta Wis17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to the other sections, the "History" section seems rather long. It should probably be tightened up. The essence of physics is not its history, right? Awadewit12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: the evolution of ideas over the past several millennia is an essential part of the civilization. For example the atomic hypothesis/theory proposed two thousand years ago only came into mainstream thought in the last century. --Ancheta Wis23:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Define quantized in the "Classical, quantum and modern physics" section. By the way, I would move this section up before the history section - it will help someone understand the history section. Awadewit12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Joke137, a physicist, and others have already proposed that History be moved to the location you see now. The outline was agreed upon after extensive discussion. See archives. --Ancheta Wis07:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this section, but I would try to make it sound even more exciting. Make someone want to be a physicist! What are the burning questions physicists want to answer? "What is dark matter? Why does it make up the majority of the universe?" etc. Awadewit12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest renaming the "Mainstream physics" links merely "Physics" - don't descend to the adjective - claim the field; "mainstream physics" suggets that there is an "alternative physics" - don't suggest that Awadewit12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feynman was one of my teachers (perhaps I might upload a picture of the Feynman diagram he inscribed in his Quantum Mechanics volume for me -- if you can't read the symbols, they are to and ). I would like to include pictures of the equations of physics in the wip page, as iconic representations of the principles of physics. --Ancheta Wis 05:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Cut from a larger post (See here). Krea17:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good idea, especially in the "Current Research" section. However, careful not to include too many equations, they might put some readers off. I'm sure you, and certainly, I would love to see equations splatted all over the place, but some readers would disagree that an equation is more beautiful to look at than a picture - especially all the time! Also, could you try to make the image a little clearer somehow? Krea17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder about including a description here or there of a famous experiment (gold foil, for example), to demonstrate in concrete terms what (some) physicists do. Besides, Rutherford's quote about cannon balls and clouds is quite descriptive. Awadewit12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'll try to include some when I eventually get to taking a look at the other sections (I am "concentrating" on the introduction section for now). Krea02:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all I don't have a suitable picture, but I think that there should be even a Galileo portrait in the article.. if I find a picture I'll try to add that but I hope someone could help Tatonzolo23:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We should try to sneak a picture of one of the most important people in the history of physics somewhere in the article. The Galileo Project has a few nice portraits that are, I think, freely available because they would either be out of copyright or come under fair use. Krea23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, there already is a nice portrait in the article! It might not survive, however, since the history section needs drastic modification. In this case, I hope we could use it elsewhere in the article in an appropriate place. Krea23:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ive removed aether from the fringe theories list as its not really a fringe theory as an expired theory. Its was superseeded by special relativity. If anyone disagrees let me know! CaptinJohn16:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are these fringe theories even included on a basic physics page? When I think "fringe" I think crackpot. Are these theories that might be proved one day like string theory (if someone could devise an experiment)? I thought cold fusion was impossible.
The word "fringe" is ambiguous: it could be interpreted as a theory lacking observational verification but expected to be confirmed, or a crack-pot theory. I'd remove "fringe" altogether. The former theories should be placed in the "Current Research" section; and for the latter, perhaps a paragraph and then links to other articles. Krea01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pascal.Tesson on the Physics talk page brings up the valid point that anything that we do should really be placed in talk or user pages. So, how about moving the Physics/wip article to Talk:Physics/wip/article, and Physics/wip/leadproposal1 to Talk:Physics/wip/leadproposal1/lead1 etc.? Krea03:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a Wikiproject space? We have to keep it out of Talk at alll costs. That is why there was so much talk in the first place. --Ancheta Wis10:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is a wikiproject space, but we'll just place the article in a talk page - we won't actually do any talking! Krea00:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Krea, for saving the history. I was lazy about how I moved it. You may want to do the same for the leadproposal pages. Gnixon00:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for altering the Welcome box without logging in. I didn't realize my session had expired when I made the change. --Ancheta Wis10:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the table of field in physics, which originally was in the "Theories and concepts" subsection? I think it was veru useful, even though few corrections should have been made. Dan Gluck18:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was axed a while back. Obviously, we need some sort classification of the major field of physics somewhere: this should be placed in the Current Research section; and, instead of a table, I would prefer to see something with a few lines explaining the basics of the subject. E.g., have sections called Thermo, EM & Optics, Mechanics, etc. with a few lines explaining each and a link to the specific article if it exists. Then, each section would be further divided as appropriate; e.g. split Mechanics into Classical and Quantum, and then Classical into Newtonian and Relativistic, and Quantum into QM pre-second quantization, and QFT etc. Each of these subsections will have a line or two explain what it essentially is and a link to the main article. This would be a more responsible way of organizing the information rather than merely dumping it into a table. I don't have the time to do this right now, but I will come to it soon enough; perhaps you would like to make a start on it? Krea03:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Joke137 suggested this change. You can now see those tables at List of basic physics topics#Nature of physics and List of basic physics topics#Branches of physics. It may be helpful to point out just what you like about the tables. Joke137 stated that the 1st two columns were OK but the right-most columns were not useful; he is not alone. Perhaps we might add specific sentences which include the good links; your contributions are invited. --23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
As a physicist at university thirty years ago I know that the the term "Modern Physics" used to be reserved for physics that started with "Quantum Physics". "The theory of relativity" and "Nuclear Physics" both belonged to "Classical Physics". I am aware that this does seem to be the way the term is used by most people outside university, but is there anyone that has a reference to this distinction changing inside the university sphere?
I did a spurious google, and all the university references I found confirm the older usage. If the distinction still holds within the universities, should we not try to uphold that distinction here?
I apologize for copying this question to several talk pages, but I am unsure where it fits.
DanielDemaret 09:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The break started with Einstein, who can be viewed as a transitional figure between Classical and Modern physics, from our point of view and our century. When Einstein learned physics, it was still classical physics, with the atomic hypothesis and molecules still very much in doubt. Einstein's paper on Brownian motion made molecular activity a respectable concept. By the twentieth century, we saw the triumph of the atomic theory. Particles were no longer in doubt, as the experiments entered realms of higher and higher energy. Modern physics was Inward Bound[1]. Quantum mechanics, of course is the theory for Modern physics. I think it is clear that "Outside the nucleus, we seem to know it all" --Feynman[2] My personal opinion is that we ought not to distinguish Classical and Modern physics. Quantum mechanics reduces to Classical mechanics when we average it out to macroscopic scale[3] --Ancheta Wis11:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^
Ballentine LE, Yang Y, Zibin JP. "Inadequacy of Ehrenfest's theorem to characterize the classical regime.
" Phys Rev A. 1994 Oct;50(4):2854-2859.
Thank you for the suggestions. I am familiar with these. The division does seem arbitrary, doesn't it?. I imagined that the division we made at the time was due to the obvious paradoxes between them. It was a long time now since I worked in the field. DanielDemaret13:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience, the term "modern physics" is not generally used much in universities; the main distinction, as we all know, being between quantum and classical. I have a sneaking suspicion that the term was popularized through non-technical works. I think that if the term does get used it is only informally. It's a good point to bring up: I think that this should all be discussed in the article. Krea21:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should not the "history" section be merged more with the article named "The history of Physics" to make this article easier to overview? DanielDemaret14:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Lead section" should be easy to read and give an overview of the rest of the article. To a degree, it does give that, but much of the Lead discusses other things which perhaps makes it a tad heavy. I am too lazy to be a good writer, but since, as far as I can tell, the physics in the article is correct, I descend into reflecting on matters of style instead. DanielDemaret14:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree it's too heavy. I will try to rewrite it at some point. Thanks for the input, and sorry for the late response. Krea19:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ideally, when some of the major sections have been rewritten (such as the introduction section). Right now, however, I gather that a lot of people, myself included, are too busy to be able to be doing any work on it right now. This project was essentially a response to the deteriorating quality of the main physics article, but if that main article has stabilized, and support for this project degenerates to just myself and Ancheta, I would propose its merger with the main article sooner. It all depends on what happens during the summer. I will check back in a few months time to see where this project is going, and ask people's opinions on where to go next. Krea19:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I bowed out of this process for a couple of months since it seemed to be not going anyplace fast, however, I do notice that we do have a lot more activity now on the main article.--Filll22:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead section is horrendously long.
Expansion navigation is not a good idea in the Introduction. Move them to a Topics in physics article.
I am not sure what to do. I am tempted to just grab the bull by the horns and rewrite, and to heck with the "consensus" with people who do not seem to be here or seem disinterested. The last time, a few months ago, I made some careful suggestions, and based on some "consensus" of people who were not around to even discuss what they had suggested, I was totally over ruled. Hmmm...--Filll12:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are all the equations in this article so ugly? Why do we need to upload equations as (highly pixelated) images? Don't we have <math></math> tags for equations inside articles? Or am I missing something here. Barak Sh (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
!
