Talk:Modern physics

message: Unit  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.45.56.159 (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

message: This is misleading, & doesn't belong in the intro.Crosleybendix (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  QM is small relativity is big & fast 

message: As a physicist at university thirty years ago I know that the the term "Modern Physics" used to be reserved for physics that started with "Quantum Physics". "The theory of relativity" and "Nuclear Physics" both belonged to "Classical Physics". I am aware that this does seem to be the way the term is used by most people outside university, but is there anyone that has a reference to this distinction changing inside the university sphere?
I did a spurious google, and all the university references I found confirm the older usage. If the distinction still holds within the universities, should we not try to uphold that distinction here? DanielDemaret 09:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Modern physics" 

message: A week ago this page effectively acted as a disambiguation page, pointing to the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.  The recent changes don't seem entirely helpful, as the page now says a little about black body radiation, and then contains the intro to a 1955 book (which could surely still be in copyright?).  In a wider sense, I don't see what the point of this article is - if someone talks about "modern physics", they're either trying to draw a distinction from the older classical physics, or they're talking about the revolutions in physics that occurred in the first part of the last century, or they're talking about physics research in the present day.  All of these topics are much better covered in their own articles, so why not keep this article as a pointer to others, rather than try to make it an article on its own?  Djr32 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've turned the page back into a disambiguation page.  Djr32 (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've reverted to the non-disambig page. My reason is that the term modern physics is a term that is widely used and warrants more than just a disambig page. This article should IMO describe the transition from classical views to non-classical ones in the period from 1900-1960 or so. This could easily be improved (it's a stub after all), and I intend to do so in the near to medium future, but right now I've focused my efforts on getting some other articles to FA status, and I'm away from my modern physics books. As for the quote, it just struck me as the perfect description of modern physics and couldn't find a way to rephrase it in my own words that didn't cheapen it. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the term is used quite widely, but, as I said before, it's still a synonym for other things (e.g. quantum mechanics).  The historical discussion you propose is definitely important, but belongs in the history of quantum mechanics article.  In any case, I really think the copyvio issue needs to be addressed.  Djr32 (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages of the recent rewrite? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: — Assignment last updated by Janyahmercedes (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: PHY 381 History of Modern Physics