Talk:Classical physics

message: Where is the cake?--209.80.246.13 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cake

message: My personal bias is that classical physics is pre-twentieth century physics.  In other words, before the advent of the special and general theories of relativity (1905 and 1914) and the advent of Quantum Mechanics (a combination of discoveries in the first 25 years of the 20th century).  Chaos theory does not really belong here, according to this viewpoint; chaos theory and the theory of dynamical systems was a viewpoint pursued by Smale (and others) from the early 1970s.  This can hardly be called "classical"; this physics is contemporary!  Physics which is classical in my opinion is Newtonian Mechanics, Boltzmann's Thermodynamics, and Maxwell's equations of Electromagnetism.  If one is going to include everything else, except for quantum mechanics, then perhaps instead of referring to this article as "Classical Physics" it should be relabelled as "Physics in the Classical Limit" (ie letting Planck's constant go to zero) or "Physics in the Large".  --Gremlin 13:32, 8 Feb 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Discussion revisited 

message: Claims that relativity has never been "superseded" or "depricated [sic]" are 1) simplistic and 2) appropriate to a relativity page, not here.  It is also unnecessary to state that relativity is incorporated into relativistic QFT, since the adjective already specifiies this.  I shall remove them.  --Michael C. Price talk 15:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relativistic Claims

message: The article currently contradicts itself over whether GR counts as part of classical physics.  (My understanding is that it doesn't, i.e. the list of topics in the Scope section is wrong.)  
The article also says (consistently!) that SR is part of classical physics.  I've always understood "classical physics" as being essentially "physics before 1905".  (I realise that for in relativity, the old physics is usually called "Galilean" rather than "classical".)  Are there actually different views on what the term "classical physics" means?  Djr32 (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Stephen Hawking, GR is a classical theory: "Einstein's general theory of relativity... is what is called a classical theory; that is, it does not take account of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics" (Brief History of Time, last para of chapter 4).  On the other hand, the classical mechanics article suggests that it's a matter of opinion whether any relativistic effects are included in classical mechanics. Djr32 (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hawking  is  wrong  about  this  and  many other things.  Classical  Physics  is  actually  before 1900,  and  Modern Physics  is after  1900,  by  common  established  usage.   So  this  Wikipedia  article  is a  disgrace  and  all  wrong.  47.201.178.44 (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In the literature, I have seen the term classical physics refer to either pre-1900 (thus excluding relativity) or pre-quantum physics (including relativity). I agree with your edits to the article. What I would like to see revised the most is the leading paragraph, which at the moment is plain wrong. Rentier (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativity part of classical physics? 

message: With regards to the sentence: If a currently accepted theory is considered to be "modern," and its introduction represented a major paradigm shift, then the previous theories, or new theories based on the older paradigm, will often be referred to as belonging to the realm of "classical" physics. Are there any sources corroborating this? As it stands, the entire leading paragraph constitutes original research.  I have never seen anything else than pre-quantum (very often) and pre-relativity (rarely) physics called classical, which hardly justifies the phrase will often be referred to. As a counter-example, I do not think anyone would ever call the old quantum theory classical. Furthermore, there exists the term "pre-classical physics" (e.g. ), so probably the article should include a lower bound on time.
I feel the whole lead may need to go, although I do not like to remove content. Any suggestions? Rentier (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Substituted at 11:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: ?? 2402:8100:396D:2F39:9A9:5A36:3169:8706 (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between modern physics and past physics