In what ways do the three terms differ?

  • Thread starter louislaolu
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Terms
In summary: I don't know who "people" are, but I don't think I have ever encountered that term as a general nomenclature for something.
  • #1
louislaolu
15
0
non-relativistic physics,classical mechanics and low speed physics
I think these three terms are synonyms, but I am not sure whether there is any stylistic difference between them?
Is "low speed physics" informal or outdated or non-standardized compared with the other two?
Please teach me if you know their difference.
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Non-relativistic physics is anything that does not apply special or general relativity.
Classical mechanics is classical mechanics and is a non-relativistic theory.
An example of a theory that is non-relativistic but that is not classical mechanics is basic quantum mechanics.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK and topsquark
  • #3
Orodruin said:
Non-relativistic physics is anything that does not apply special or general relativity.
Classical mechanics is classical mechanics and is a non-relativistic theory.
An example of a theory that is non-relativistic but that is not classical mechanics is basic quantum mechanics.
Thank you for the reply, Orodruin. Is it correct to say that non-relativistic physics is a broader concept than classical mechanics.
What about the term "low speed physics"? Do people still or ever use it?
 
  • #4
louislaolu said:
Thank you for the reply, Orodruin. Is it correct to say that non-relativistic physics is a broader concept than classical mechanics.
Yes.
louislaolu said:
What about the term "low speed physics"? Do people still or ever use it?
I don't know who "people" are, but I don't think I have ever encountered that term as a general nomenclature for something.
 
  • Like
Likes hutchphd
  • #5
I mean experts or scientists by "people". (English is not my native language, so I often fail to say what I mean)
Your explanation helps me a lot. Thank you so much!
 
  • #6
louislaolu said:
What about the term "low speed physics"? Do people still or ever use it?
It might be applied to those who take a long time to learn. Ironically, there's quite a lot of low speed physics in the relativity forum on here!
 
  • Haha
Likes SammyS
  • #7
Orodruin said:
Classical mechanics is classical mechanics and is a non-relativistic theory.
Some people would include relativistic mechanics as part of classical mechanics.
 
  • #8
vela said:
Some people would include relativistic mechanics as part of classical mechanics.
That is also acceptable to the effect of relativity being a classical theory (as opposed to a quantum theory).
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #9
PeroK said:
It might be applied to those who take a long time to learn. Ironically, there's quite a lot of low speed physics in the relativity forum on here!
Thanks. What an interesting interpretation! I can come up with a new one: snail physics:smile:
 
  • #10
vela said:
Some people would include relativistic mechanics as part of classical mechanics.
Thanks.
I am trying to figure out why "low speed physics" in a science fiction was rendered into "classical mechanics (non-relativistic physics)" after the work was translated from Chinese into English. I assume that the translator meant to standardize the original term, but I have no evidence. I feel a canonical view of these terms might account for this better in this context.
 
Last edited:

1. What are the three terms being compared?

The three terms being compared are often related to a specific topic or field of study, such as different theories, concepts, or methods.

2. How do the three terms differ from each other?

The three terms may differ in their definitions, applications, or interpretations. They may also have different strengths and limitations.

3. Can you provide examples of how the three terms differ?

Examples can be helpful in understanding the differences between the three terms. They can be real-life scenarios or hypothetical situations that illustrate the distinctions between the terms.

4. Why is it important to understand the differences between the three terms?

Understanding the differences between the three terms can help clarify their meanings and prevent confusion or misuse. It can also deepen our understanding of the topic or field of study.

5. Are there any common misconceptions about the differences between the three terms?

Yes, there can be common misconceptions about the differences between the three terms. It is important to critically examine and research the terms to avoid misunderstandings and inaccuracies.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
922
Replies
4
Views
865
Replies
3
Views
957
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
12
Views
958
Replies
20
Views
8K
Replies
38
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
157
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
3
Replies
94
Views
4K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
14
Views
1K
Back
Top