New Physics Area

[Dave]

This new Physics area can be treated as a "General Physics" section, where you can post new topics which can't be categorized into a specific sub-forum. Enjoy

[timo]

There is a question I was wondering about since I joined here and perhaps this might be the right point to ask it: What is "Modern/Theoretical Physics" ?

Is it supposed to be "modern theoretical physics" or "modern physics and theoretical physics"? If it´s the former I´d wonder why there´s such a specialized subforum. If it´s the latter then it seems like a curious mixture to me.

 

I cannot see a real reason why theoretical physics should have a seperate forum when experimental physics and applied physics don´t. In fact, I could rather understand why there´d be a subforum for experimental physics and none for theory. After all, there are some things in experimental physics that theoreticans don´t really bother about (feasability of measurements, applicability of different devices, ...) while I can think of little theoretical physics that isn´t used (verified, for example) by experimentalists.

[ecoli]

maybe because theretical physics is a relatively modern field?

[Dave]

There have been some proposed renames for a while now, but nobody has actually got around to getting them implemented. I'll post them here, and if you guys can provide some feedback then that would be great.

[Dave]

Here's the list:

 

CLASSICAL PHYSICS AND QUANTUM BASICS

first-year physics topics forces, motion, statics, fluids, waves, electricity and magnetism, heat...

 

ATOMIC PHYSICS AND CONDENSED MATTER

atoms, molecules, semiconductors, superconductors, lasers..

 

SPACETIME AND GRAVITY

spacetime geometry, special and general relativity, classical and quantum gravity

 

NUCLEI AND PARTICLES

high energy physics, fundamental particles, standard model and extensions, quantum field theory

 

ASTRONOMY AND COSMOLOGY

 

This list was produced by Martin with the input from the rest of the experts. There's also been some discussion about whether the "Classical and Quantum Basics" forum would be merged into the this (the general) forum, since they're virtually the same thing. The transitions from old to new forum names are fairly obvious, I think.

[Martin]

...There's also been some discussion about whether the "Classical and Quantum Basics" forum would be merged into the this (the general) forum, since they're virtually the same thing. The transitions from old to new forum names are fairly obvious, I think.

 

If Atheist or others have suggestions for physics subforums, I think it would be helpful to post them.

I dont have any particular attachment to what we came up with and what Dave just listed.

I'd urge Atheist to supply his own list of headings (and a few words of description if he wants) if he has any he'd like better.

 

I am glad that the management seems inclined to do some straightening and get things more orderly.

[timo]

I didn´t really want to complain about the current or a future arrangement of the physics subforums. I was simply asking what "Modern/Theoretical Physics" is supposed to mean (well, and I gave it a few comments so that my post wouldn´t look so tiny). If I had been asked for a suggestion what to change at this point (before Dave posted a suggestion for a new arrangement) I had simply said "let's replace Modern/Theoretical Physics with Eletrodynamics". My question what "Modern/Theoretical Physics" means hasn't been answered yet, btw.

 

For attempting to give a reasonable suggestion for the subdivision of the physics forum I´d have to know why to subdivide it at all. There´s several reasons I could think of like giving an additional information on what the poster is talking about at all, making it easier for people to give an adequate reply, giving the visitors the possibility to directly browse to the threads they are interested in, being easier to administrate or simply easing the forum navigation.

 

The list posted by Dave seems pretty ok. It´s more application-oriented than what I´d have had in mind but perhaps thats quite a good idea. Only thing I´d worry is whether the "Classical Physics and Quantum Basics" isn´t a bit crowded with topics (Classical Mechanics, basic QM, Electrodynamics and Thermodynamics).

[Dave]

Yes; I agree that it's a bit all-encompassing. I'd be inclined to just keep it as "Classical Physics" but it leaves rather a large gap for Quantum Mechanics, unless this fell under the statute of Atomic Physics.

 

As for Modern/Theoretical, I believe that this was intended as almost a QM forum, but I'm not entirely sure. I think blike might be in a better position to answer

[Dave]

Did anyone have any further comments on this?

[5614]

I like it how it is.

 

We've got our classical or Newtonian stuff in one section, the quantum in the next, all relativity in the next and if it isn't old (newtonian), quantum or relativity then it easily fits into the modern/theoretical... I like it, we're all used to it and it's obvious for anyone new which section they want to post in. Then just stick astronomy/cosmology in it's own area, sorted!

 

[edit] I mean if we look at the new proposed list, say some new person had a question about the nucleus, they may not be sure whether to post it in atomic or particles or quantum.... and merging quantum and classical, you can't do that! And keeping superconducts etc. which are QM seperately from the QM section... nah, I don't like it.

[Dave]

At the moment I'm not keen on "Modern/Theoretical Physics" - that's far too much of an all-encompassing beast of a topic, and is far too general.

 

"Quantum Basics" is just that - the basics of quantum physics. Personally I wouldn't count superconductors as basic at all There is, to a large degree, an overlap from classical physics into QM when it comes to even the most basic questions about the nucleus. The Atomic Physics section is (unless I've got this horribly wrong) to all extents and purposes a QM section.

 

However, I think the Nuclei and Particle Physics forum is perhaps a little confusing. More clarification may be required in the forum descriptions.

[5614]

How do classical and QM overlap? Classical is Newtonian physics, it is incorrect on a small aka quantum scale.

 

Whilst moder/theoretical may in itself be a bit vague, when you look at the other sections it is quite obvious what it is intended for (see post #10).

 

If you look at the physics sections currently each one is used correctly, each one is used sufficient to make it worth while having that section. Indeed out of all of the "we need a ____ section" there has been NONE involving physics, in fact there have been no complaints involving physics that I've ever seen. If it aint broke don't try and fix it!

[Dave]

I'm not saying that the entirety of QM overlaps with everything in Classical Physics (which isn't only Newtonian physics). I'm saying that in order to discuss the basic notions of QM, you have to consider what the problems are with classical physics, and to that extent there is a certain amount of overlap. If you've done the A-level physics course, then you'll know what I'm talking about.

 

If the general consensus is that the community doesn't want the names changed, then that's fine and we won't change them. But frankly, I've found that some of the posts in Physics have been anything but - hence the Speculations forum. My own thoughts were that it frankly needs a breath of fresh air in order to attract more people and improve the general quality of posts. As I said, if the community doesn't like it then we certainly won't do it.

[5614]

I sure agree that there is an overlap in that you must know the difference between QM and classical, even the basics of QM show this (e.g. wave-particle duality and uncertainty, the first things you learn in QM and it underlies the difference between QM and classical physics)... however I don't think this "know the difference" connection is the right kind of connection to merge the 2 into one section.

 

But look, you know my view, I know yours... so lets see what others want to do.

 

Atheist doesn't seem to mind much and Martin seemingly agrees with you (in that he came up with the proposed new sections) but we really need more people's input before making a decision, would you agree?

 

Also you know what I said about "if it aint broke dont try and fix it"... has anyone ever complained about the current sections?

[timo]

So then I´ll be the first one who complains about "Modern/Theoretical Physics" - especially since noone seems to really know what it is supposed to be. Since you seem to like it, perhaps you can tell me what you think it is or even what it should be (perhaps we could agree on a better name for it).

Saying "everything that doesn´t fit into Relativity or QM can go there" doesn´t seem like a reasonable statement now that we have the main forum specifically for threads that don´t fit into one of the sub-categories. Also from my point of view, most of the threads in the "Modern/Theoretical Physics" actually would belong to either QM or Relativity. Take for example your recent thread about Feynman Diagrams: I wouldn´t know any place where they appear other than Quantum Theories. Why didn´t you post it under "Quantum Mechanics"? Not that I really bother but maybe it helps me understanding what you or others think "Modern/Theoretical Physics" is.

 

Apart from my dislike for "Modern..." there´s one point I´d see nessecary (and which is covered by the proposal Dave posted): I really think one of the subforums should explicitely mention Electrodynamics in its description.

[swansont]

As listed on the index, modern/theoretical encompasses atomic and nuclear structure. I agree that electrodynamics should be mentioned explicitly. It might help if the new physics area actually said it was for general physics questions on the index page, rather than having to read a thread to discover the information.

 

Perhaps I'm feeling especially cynical this morning, but I don't see how it matters much. Some fraction of people are going to post in the wrong topic area no matter what (out of either ignorance or apathy) and having more topics means more opportunity for errors. I suppose it helps if one were searching for previous posts on a topic, but that behavior seems to be lacking - of course, there's no way to count the number of people who do a search, find the answer they were looking for, and then don't post.

[5614]

If a new system was implemented then what would happen to all current threads? How would they be sorted into the new system?