Major fields of physics

  1. jcsd
  2. 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?
     
  3. haha....

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

    lol!
     
  4. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 29,757
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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]
     
  5. 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.)
     
  6. jtbell

    Staff: Mentor

    A look at the thread titles was enough for me. :yuck: 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.
     
  7. 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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2006
  8. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 29,757
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Oh please! Don't get me started!

    Zz.
     
  9. 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.
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. I see nothing wrong, or overly complicated, with that Wikipedia article.
     
  12. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 29,757
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  13. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 29,757
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  14. 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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2006
  15. im flabbagasted!

    i stand corrected!
     
  16. ZapperZ

    ZapperZ 29,757
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  17. well is there anyway for any pro's to help wiki and "complete" the info as much as possible.
    because i'm quite sure that many people in general, nowadays, depend on it... n if i hadn't found this site, i guess i will be depending on other sources like wikipedia which is pretty inaccurate.


    ty,
    confused
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?