Modern Physics vs Classical Physics

by Senjai
Tags: classical, modern, physics
Senjai is offline
Dec28-09, 06:43 PM
P: 104
Just curious, what's the difference?

I was told be someone that modern physics has ways of accurately defining what a force is, while classical physics does not define forces, only acceleration in terms of force and mass.

Again, just curious.. What are the major differences? Is one wrong? (similar to how high school students were taught the bohr model earlier to discover it was wrong later.)

Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on
Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur
Scientists observe quantum superconductor-metal transition and superconducting glass
New technique detects microscopic diabetes-related eye damage
dmtr is offline
Dec28-09, 09:21 PM
P: 186
Correct me if I wrong in my summation. Modern physics deals mostly with the dynamics of the space, classical - dynamics in the space.
Pythagorean is offline
Dec28-09, 09:28 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,181
one simple difference is that classical physics deals with slow, big things (from bullets to planets) while modern physics was required for smaller, faster moving things (like electrons).

GR is a counter example, of course.

arunma is offline
Dec28-09, 09:45 PM
P: 908

Modern Physics vs Classical Physics

There are a few varying definitions of what separates classical physics from modern physics. Some day that everything pre-1905 is classical, and everything afterwards is modern. The defnition I prefer, and have heard most often, is that every branch of physics that does not utilize a quantum treatment is classical, and any physics that is based on quantum mechanics is modern. So classical physics includes mechanics, E&M, the kinetic theory of gases, optics (including the whole wave/particle duality thing), and special and general relativity (yes, I've heard a cosmologist call GR a classical theory). Modern physics then includes non-relativistic quantum mechanics, quantum statistical mechanics, nuclear/particle stuff, and field theory.

Regarding forces, I think you might have heard slightly incorrectly. In quantum mechanics we actually don't talk about forces at all. In non-relativistic quantum mechanics, potentials (potential energy and the magnetic vector potential) play a more direct role than in classical physics. And in relativistic quantum mechanics, or quantum field theory, we get rid of potentials altogether and talk about fields. It's actually somewhat difficult to do a quantum mechanics calculation while talking about "forces," without fudging the formalism somewhat.
Pythagorean is offline
Dec29-09, 01:58 AM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,181
The experimental history of light is another interesting case that betrays my simple assertion above.

And non-linear (chaos) dynamics perhaps too.
bbos is offline
Dec29-09, 02:06 AM
P: 4
Classical physics is based on Newtonian physics where as modern physics supplements upon that with general relativity and quantum mechanics

Register to reply

Related Discussions
Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics Edition Comparison Science & Math Textbook Listings 0
Modern physics in EE Academic Guidance 0
Quantum physics vs classical physics Quantum Physics 2
Physics department faculty advisor said Modern Physics will be hardest course Academic Guidance 7
Modern vs Classical Physics General Discussion 29