Talk:Outline of physics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Medical Physics[edit]

How come there was no item for medical physics in the list yet? It's such a big and important branch of Physics - and one that is a lot closer to "regular" people than most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmneto (talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

The following two sections are copied here from the Talk:Physics sections of Physics Education: the issue is that the YouTube links ought to be integrated more fully into a wikipedia article, such as List of basic physics topics. With a little more formatting the YouTube links can be cast into a more integrated part of this article. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COPIED FROM Talk:Physics 17:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is the section on teaching physics?[edit]

After ten years, doesn't Wikipedia have an article on the teaching of physics, i.e. physics education?

Well, this should be embarassing for the Wikipedia editors. Apparently there is an article on physics education...but the people who wrote it acted as if it had nothing to do with physics! They never came here to collaborate with the physics article editors. Seems a bit odd. And the people who spend time writing about physics, or its various fields, never thought about how to educate people on the subject? Well, I have made a few links that hopefully will correct this.
It is six years going on seven. Wikipedia started Jan 15, 2001. There was a physics article from the beginning.
One might argue that there also ought to be an article on learning physics, which is currently being addressed by the list of basic physics topics and category:fundamental physics concepts, where the goal in the encyclopedia was self-education.
Welcome to wikipedia. Your new perspective will be invaluable and the editors look forward to your additional contributions. You are welcome to get a username, which is handy if you want to upload images, for example.
I personally am a big fan of Louis Bloomfield, How everything works: making physics out of the ordinary ISBN 0-471-74817-X and also Paul G. Hewitt, Conceptual physics ISBN 0-321-05160-2. These books stay pretty much in the classical realm, but the physicists like Brian Greene, Alan Guth, Michio Kushi, Stephen Hawking, etc. have made widely-known efforts to reach the public with the post-Newtonian parts of physics. I wonder if you have thoughts on teaching about the classical realm in the high schools; that way the observations can stay inexpensive.
--Ancheta Wis (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a look at the PER article and was surprised to see that D'Alembert's principle was not mentioned in the section on Newtonian physics. If we look at things from D'Alembert's pov then we look for the forces necessary to reduce everything to statics. This idea works in electromagnetics as well (reduce everything to electrostatics). I learned this trick from Kurt Lehovec, one of the inventors of the integrated circuit; that's how he analyzed the non-volatile RAM in class for us, before there were any; now you can buy them in the drugstore). And if there aren't any forces to make it static, add in a fictitious force to balance it out.
--Ancheta Wis (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the article section header is Physics education. That is actually of larger scope than Teaching Physics. Do you really mean Education? That could be interpreted as broadly as being the Presidential Science Advisor, currently staffed by a physicist, which raises issues which are currently not addressed in the article. Max Born stated that the physics of the current time will be the philosophy of the future (hence the politics of the farther future). I suggest that the section header be renamed Teaching Physics to skirt the change of scope in the section. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After having listed some YouTube links to selected physics topics, I am undecided about Applied physics from the article. For example, the atomic bomb is an application which was developed immediately after the discovery of fission at the eve of WWII. But the amazing machines we are using to communicate with each other right now are examples which are just as good. Might an applied section be good to have links for?
I have tried to include links to demonstrate that physics is fun, vital and interesting. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Learning physics[edit]

Since an (anonymous) editor has noted the omission of teaching physics, I propose a companion section on learning physics. Here, for example, one might note the need for some fundamentals which are necessary to get started, such as building up a store of physics experiences. These would be needed to supplement the laws of motion, etc. One thing might be videos of common phenomena, such as birds flying, balls moving, water dropping, cars starting and stopping, lightning, rain. The use of physics engines for video animation might be an ambitious project, but it would be useful for animating the motion of an airplane, ball, etc. Simple electrical circuits might be appropriate here.

I propose that we include YouTube links to appropriate Physics videos. For example, there were some students who filled a swimming pool with cornstarch and water; after some hesitation, several jumped in and were able to run on the top of the non-Newtonian fluid, just as an insect can walk on water. It is the best demonstration of a non-Newtonian fluid I have seen.
--Ancheta Wis (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To all editors: you are welcome to join in adding those links. It appears that the links ought to be in a separate tab or in a separate browser session so that the reading of the Physics article is not interrupted too much. I find it best to have 2 separate Firefox tabs in 2 separate browser sessions, one for the YouTube video, and one for Wikipedia. For example, here are links to some physics videos on youtube:

Natural phenomena, the basis for the study of physics

Classical mechanics and the classical realm It should noted that much of Newtonian (classical) physics can be learned on a child's playground. Here balls moving, slides, merry-go-rows, see-saws, swings can illustrate much of what is laboriously conveyed in a classroom to the students.

Gravitation and matter

Waves and electromagnetism

Molecular dynamics (of the bouncy balls above, for example) can explain air pressure, and also phases of matter, such as non-Newtonian fluids

Quantum mechanics is the theoretical basis of chemistry, but more work is needed to unify with the classical realm


Perhaps the idea of transformations might be useful to convey here, such as Newton's use of calculus to transform an equation from one form to another. That would lead naturally to the idea of invariants under a transformation, which has been in use for several hundred years now; its use is vital today. You can Google for Conformal group where I found this; these links are motivated by this video, by Douglas N. Arnold and Jonathan Rogness

But perhaps a separate article is the way to go here, because the introductory and preparatory material could easily overwhelm what we have in the current article.
In order to keep these videos from disrupting the encyclopedia pages, it may be better to cite individual external links in the respective articles, and to put wikilinks in a Learning physics section in, say, the List of basic physics topics.

--Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gnixon, it occurs to me that History of physics might be useful here, because the history could then contain a list of misconceptions which physicists had to get past before the truth was known and the physics could be properly formulated. In addition, the proper ideas could be stated along with the misconceptions in the history article, with proper credit to the originators. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[ http://www.learnerstv.com/course.php?cat=Physics Physics videos from MIT] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ancheta Wis (talk • contribs) 12:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposal for this page and all the pages of the set this page belongs to[edit]

See the proposal at the Village pump

The Transhumanist 09:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for outlines[edit]

Guidelines for the development of outlines are being drafted at Wikipedia:Outlines.

Your input and feedback is welcomed and encouraged.

The Transhumanist 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "History of" section needs links![edit]

Please add some relevant links to the history section.

Links can be found in the "History of" article for this subject, in the "History of" category for this subject, or in the corresponding navigation templates. Or you could search for topics on Google - most topics turn blue when added to Wikipedia as internal links.

The Transhumanist 00:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Tesla[edit]

Nikola Tesla was not a physicist, and he certainly didn't expand nuclear physics. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to electromagnetism as that is what he is known for. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simplicity?[edit]

While I do not know whether the following is true: 

Physics started with a philosophical commitment to simplicity.

One should add (in better words than mine) that simplicity became of secondary criteria to completeness. While many approximations used by physics are still simple, many underpinnings (not the deepness) are not. For example, Wave–particle duality, Maxwell's equations uniting light, electrical charge and magnetism, Schrödinger equation, physical interpretation of imaginary numbers, Length contraction, etc.

The rational for my argument is with the problem of using Occam's razor which is misinterpreted as simplicity first (it isn't). A more complex theory that explains more phenomena is not admissible to the razor. Simplicity is only a criteria when two theories give the same results and accuracy. Specifically because of this problem, Einstein formulated his "but no simpler" razor. See Models of scientific inquiry and q:Albert Einstein. Technically while Einstein's razor is a subset of Occam's, in usage, Einstein's razor is a caution against overuse of simplicity.

I can understand the need to make Physics approachable to all, but please don't oversimplify or oversell. Dpleibovitz (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is covered at Wikipedia:Outlines re: the whole list lead should be deleted since it reads as unreferenced opinion and be replaced by a shorter form of the lead paragraph at Physics. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have truncated out the lead because WP:LIST leads should define the list, they are not there to instruct, or promote a topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines[edit]

"Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation. The Transhumanist 00:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Answer to TOE: A Theoretical Proposal for Quantum Physicists Scientific Review & Consideration[edit]

I have a VERY unique, highly advanced epistemology based on my life's most passionate desire and primary life goal. As concisely as I can define it, it is simply, "To Know WHY we (people) must be here (Earth bound)", and What exactly is the purpose, goal, function of human life as it is perceptually experienced.

My life's research had no boundaries, limitations, or restrictions in acquiring information, historical data, regardless of time, religions, schools of thought, race, geographic region, beliefs, socially acceptable or condemned mores, values, tenets, rituals, and such. All thoughts conceived, regardless of education, experience, wisdom, ignorance, IQ, parentage, environmental impacts, physical and mental status, philosophies both ancient and recent, world cultures, rare historical knowledge acquired over 40 years, specifically Christian history, pre-Christ and after His death, political and religious truths and the unfathomable depths of corrupt reasoning, acts, and formal deceitful documentation...

Nothing was overlooked, including myths, lore, legends, mystical, insights, intuitions, dreams. Over 40 years, I have the most sought after answers in the field of quantum physics which I only need to publish; with the information made available for anyone to read, I leave the scientific community to convert text-based formulas into mathematical and scientific formulas (for the purpose of making otherwise nonsensical assumptions understood in simplest form).

I know what dark matter and energy is. I know why the properties and laws governing the visible world don't apply to the sub-atomic world. I know EXACTLY what the sub-atomic world's purpose, function and the nature of the laws governing it are, as well as it's relationship to the visible world, and that which falls "in-between" the two, which has never even been conceived by man, let alone perceptually understood.

I know, KNOW, much more, even, not limiting my obsessive research to understand why we need to be humans, and why Earth is the perfect "classroom" to fulfill the goal of every human being. Science can only provide answers as it evolves over time to the physical realm of mass, and all that includes. Science has no authority, and no right to expound on anything beyond tangible means of measuring material elements of a 3-D manifested plane of existence.

But, one day, some of what I hope to publish before I die will eventually lead to a completely compatible, co-dependent relationship between the two AND what falls in-between.

Discussion topic requested: create a section for user-submitted theoretical proposals that rely on factual, historical, well documented sources in every area lacking that which would create a unified, complete eternal construct of an entire field of study.

An Academic Paper originally started on Academia.edu, by Renee M. Wenker

JoySLeigh (talk)JoySLeighJoySLeigh (talk) JoySLeigh (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Famous physicists?[edit]

I have removed that section since it is an undefined list with no inclusion criteria per WP:LEADFORALIST, and a dumping ground for anyone to post their favorite physicist (hey, everyone in Wikipedia is "Famous"). I see no reason to include the list but maybe someone else can come up with a rational. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Outline_of_physics&oldid=1193716310"