Major fields of physics

bkvitha

those wanting to know the major fields of physics.....go to this url


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics...hes_of_physics

Poop-Loops

That just blew my mind. And I skipped ahead to the "applied physics" part, so I still missed a whole bunch.

I feel like a kid in a candy store. What branch should I go to? Where is my destiny hiding?

bkvitha

haha....

u should have used the index
and gone to
2.2Major fields in physics

lol!

ZapperZ

This is why I wouldn't trust using Wikipedia for something like this.

I would strongly suggest that if anyone wants to have a good idea of the different field of studies in physics, that one goes to one of the physics professional organizations, and then look at the different divisions that is listed. This is as clear as anything one can find regarding the areas of physics that physicists work in.

Check the APS website and look under the drop box of the different divisions under the APS wing. You'll see that there is a lot more there than what you find in the Wikipedia page, and it is a lot more descriptive if you follow the links.

http://www.aps.org/units/index.cfm

Zz [Still scarry that people use Wikipedia for such things]

Daverz

I noticed the link to

http://www.physicsmathforums.com/

What's the relation between that forum and this one? There seem to be more cranks at that forum (check the Relativity area; that always brings out the cranks.)

jtbell

A look at the thread titles was enough for me. It looks almost as bad as sci.physics.relativity on Usenet. I say "almost" because s.p.r, being unmoderated, has a huge amount of name-calling and personal attacks. I hope the moderators at physicsmathforums at least suppress that kind of stuff.

Daverz

Yeah, sci.physics.relativity is a real tragedy. There's no relativity discussed there; it was taken over by the cranks, and they are a nasty, nasty bunch. (Actually I think its purpose was to drain away some of the cranks from sci.physics.) This is about the best public forum I've seen for relativity.

By the way, the material on physics I've seen on Wikepaedia has been pretty good. I haven't noticed any obvious funny business, although it's possible that something subtle may have passed by me.

ZapperZ

Oh please! Don't get me started!

Zz.

Daverz

Well, I admit I haven't looked at a lot of it, except for some pages on some technical aspects of GR and Riemannian geometry.

Sojourner01

Wikipedia's physics topics are...convoluted, to say the least. Everything that's apparently supposed to be explaining quantum physics in particular, draws on more advanced mathematics to explain itself - which makes it useless to anyone who doesn't already know it all.

J77

I see nothing wrong, or overly complicated, with that Wikipedia article.

ZapperZ

So what you're telling me is that when you look at that Wikipedia entry, and then you look at all the division of the APS, you see no differences whatsoever?

Ooooookaaaayy.

Zz.

J77

But when I look at the IoP divisions, I see:

Optics and Photonics
Atomic Molecular Optical and Plasma Physics
Condensed MAtter and Material Physics
Nuclear and Particle Physics
Applied Physics and Technology

which is very similar to the Wikipedia list...

http://www.iop.org/Our_Activities/Gr...ons/index.html

ZapperZ

And that is why I always give the example of the APS website, because (i) it is the LARGEST physics professional organization in the world and (ii) all the other major physics organizations in the rest of the world have affiliations with the APS. It does mean that the divisions of the APS includes the broadest coverage of the various subfields of physics.

And oh, if you look at the European Physical Society, you'd see A LOT more divisions.

http://www.eps.org/divisions.html

My point? People who don't know any better and read that Wikipedia article would think that that is all there is.

Zz.

J77

I agree that wiki is sometiimes far from accurate and can be cliquey or crackpottish...

However, if you're someone having a quick look into what physics is all about - those main fields stand true.

bkvitha

im flabbagasted!

i stand corrected!

ZapperZ

They are true and incomplete, and that has always been the problem for many instances where people only get bits and pieces of information. They get an incomplete information, but they are not aware that they're getting an incomplete information.

Zz.