Template talk:Branches of physics

Theophysics

How can you claim that theophysics is a branch of physics. Physics deals with science and is based on experiments and observation. That is something that a religion can never be.

Physics tries to decribe the world that is seen by models whereas theology make models and then incoorperate what is seen in those if it fits. This is totally opposite ways to describe the world and they can not be reconciled. Theophysics(if it is anything) can only be a form of thelogy and should therefore be dropped from this template. Elentirmo (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Optomechanics?

I am removing "Optomechanics" from the list. It's not a physics sub-field but a manufacturing or engineering topic. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't Optics be in the Waves and Fields row?

Considering that light is an electromagnetic wave, and that the core of physical optics is the electromagnetic theory, shouldn't Optics and its sub-branches be grouped alongside Electromagnetism? --190.199.44.180 (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Revamped version

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of the newer version of the template. It omits several fields of physics that were in the original (such as acoustics and accelerator physics). Was this change even discussed somewhere? 'Cause it certainly wasn't in this very talk page. =/ --186.185.83.80 (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I like it. It organizes the material in a much better way. Accelerator physics is in there: it's in the "Standard model" section. I just added Acoustics. Personally, I'm not a fan of excessively large and unorganized navboxes. This one was due for some pruning.--Srleffler (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. At least it shpuld have been discussed, but I guess I'll have to live with it. --186.185.83.80 (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. We do encourage editors to try out improvements by boldly editing, and seeing if others object. Discussion in advance is good too, but isn't always necessary.--Srleffler (talk) 01:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I moved "Accelerator physics" out of the Particle physics section because it's not a subfield of particle physics. The Accelerator physics page even clearly distinguishes Accelerator physics and experiments done with particle accelerators. --128.97.102.187 22:47, 8 Febuary 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.102.187 (talk)

I removed it altogether. As defined by its article accelerator physics is a narrow application, not a "branch of physics", and should not be included in this template. --Srleffler (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Time to prune?

This template keeps getting bigger. It's supposed to be "branches of physics", not "every topic studied in physics". How about pruning it back to something like the following:--Srleffler (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Or, even more concise:

I agree. The second shorter version above is sufficient. Bduke (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

To this day and age, I still miss the very first version, the one that sorted fields by fundamental concepts like "Energy and motion" or "Waves and fields". Subsequent versions have only felt like solutions looking for a problem to solve. The one just recentle installed is missing too many critical fields of physics (even those which were present in the other versions, such as thermodynamics and condensed matter physics). But I guess my opinion has zero weight. --2601:701:300:3D10:F586:1813:A986:CB60 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't the first version, but I think you're referring to this or one of the iterations of it:

--Srleffler (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Yup, that's the one. Now, I have already said that the current version isn't my favorite, but I would live with it if it wasn't so extremely exclusionary. I can understand the opinion that not all sub-branches have to be included, but I still think that fields like thermodynamics, optics and condensed matter physics should be included (I would say acoustics as well, but historically that field never received so much love or importance from the physics community). Especially since their absence will leave the inclusion of this template in those articles orphaned. The template can then be locked if you're too worried about other users adding or removing stuff without discussion. --2601:701:300:3D10:F586:1813:A986:CB60 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No response? Not even a "No" (though why the fields I mentioned should be ommited is still beyond me)? --2601:701:300:3D10:F586:1813:A986:CB60 (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't object. I was hoping more people would contribute here. It would be good to get a wider range of opinions on what is core and what is not.--Srleffler (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Classical electromagnetism

Why is classical electromagnetism listed instead of electromagnetism? The former is only a specific field that studies the classical formulation of electromagnetic theory, while the latter is broader and also includes relativistic electromagnetism, network analysis and even connections with particle physics. Am I allowed to do the replacement in the template? --206.62.162.123 (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Because the template separates classical from "modern" physics. The broader topic electromagnetism wouldn't fit into either section of the template.--Srleffler (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

But classical electromagnetism also studies relativity. See Chapters 11 and 12 of Jackson's book on classical electromagnetism. Furthermore, the branches of classical and modern physics aren't separated completely from each other, as they do overlap at some point (for example, statistical mechanics transitions from classical to quantum as one studies it, going from Maxwell-Boltzmann to Fermi-Dirac). --206.62.162.123 (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't consider relativity to be classical physics, Jackson notwithstanding. Yes, there is overlap between fields. Ultimately, though, to make a template like this one you have to have some kind of organizing principle. Dividing physics into "classical" and "modern" is a convenient way of breaking down the field.

A broader question one might ask is whether "branches of physics" should be identified based on areas of active research, or based on how students learn physics in school. Or, for that matter, whether physics has "branches" at all. This template has had a history of churn because everyone has a different idea about what a "branch" of physics is.--Srleffler (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)