I partly agree. Of course, you forgot classical statistics and (non)relativistic thermodynamics. And quantum statisticsGalileo said:The way I see it is that quantum physics is more general than quantum mechanics.
Quantum physics is the name for a collection of quantum theories: (non)relativistic quantum mechanics (also including quantum optics) and quantum field theory.
Just like classical physics is a collective name for classical mechanics, electromagnetism and relativity.
Indeed ; I thought quantum theory is the conceptual framework of Hilbert spaces, operators, and all that, which you can then apply to different, more concrete, models.Galileo said:The way I see it is that quantum physics is more general than quantum mechanics.
We will use the term "quantum mechanics" to refer to both relativistic and non-relativistic quantum mechanics; the terms quantum physics and quantum theory are synonymous. It should be noted, however, that certain authors refer to "quantum mechanics" in the more restricted sense of non-relativistic quantum mechanics.
It will be great fun to read cooking prescriptions based on methods of QFT. Please provide ref when you will finish writing. I will be happy if it will be also practical but it is only sufficient and not necessary condition.I'm a Literature buff writing a health and diet book desperately trying to comprehend Quantum Physics so I can sum it up.
Yes, most universities do this, but often it occurs a year earlier - between third year and fourth year of undergrad.at most Universities,
quantum physics = intermediate level, (for college seniors, e.g. Griffiths)
quantum mechanics = semi-advanced level, (for first year graduate student, e.g. Sakurai's MQM)
Or that Quantum Mechanics is not a field theory.A typical sequence of courses is: Quantum Physics; Quantum Mechanics; Quantum Field Theory. This gives the (false) impression that quantum physics is less advanced than the others.
I suggest the following criteria: the quantum physics is everything that satisfy delta(x)*delta(p)>h/2; the QM = non-relativistic version of QT(completed); the relativistic QM=unified theory of strong and electroweak interactions (not completed yet) and general QM= unified theory of electroweak, strong and gravitational interactions (not formulated yet).Physics is ALWAYS based on clearly, underlying mathematical description. This is the only thing that makes a difference.
And considering we are talking about PHYSICS here and not how we SPELL a word, that is the criteria that *I* am using. What criteria did YOU use?
I can be confused if I read this.I see many confussion here.
No the Wiki is not correct.
There is no relativistic quantum mechanics. Both Dirac equations and Klein/Gordon wave equations are wrong equations, when examinated in detail. The only consistent relativistic quantum formulation is relativistic quantum mechanics which is not a quantum mechanics in original sense and does not use original Dirac and Klein/Gordon.
My impression also that Juan R. statement is logically inconsistent. Both Dirac and Klein-Gordon equations are certainly not wrong and it is not clear what he mean QM in original sense.I can be confused if I read this.
I would like to add how I understand word “wrong”. Consider Galilean world vs SR. Is it wrong? I think the answer should be no. However, it is not adequate. The process of knowledge acquisition takes time. The average time required for the adequate formulation of the physical theory is of order 100 years.There is no relativistic quantum mechanics. Both Dirac equations and Klein/Gordon wave equations are wrong equations, when examinated in detail. The only consistent relativistic quantum formulation is relativistic quantum mechanics which is not a quantum mechanics in original sense and does not use original Dirac and Klein/Gordon.