Talk:Classical field theory

message: I have begun performing several edits, and have forgotten to comment the edits. The initial few edits were adding relativistic invariance. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. Masud 15:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added relevant sections. They still need touching up, which I may do later, and I have yet to add the source lagrangian for the EM field and general relativity. Masud 16:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits on 22/12/05 

message: Does this section in the article belong in the SR article? Or perhaps another article altogether. Masud 16:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Spacetime physics section in the SR article...maybe this should have a link to that? Masud 13:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativistic invariance 

message: I'm with Masud on the issue of the article containing more than just a description of one field theory. The article is called 'classical field theory' and this includes more than just any particluar field theory - EM, GR etc. and Newtonian gravitation; yes, that's right, Newtonian gravitation is a classical field theory. Which brings me to another point: classical field theories are not necessarily Lorentz covariant as the article claims (and incorrectly gives the example of the string). Depending on how much information we want to include on each classical field theory, other articles on EM, GR etc. may be needed. MP   (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on the cleanup. Am attempting to separate relativistic and non-relativistic fields. Note that the electric field (also initially treated non-relativistically) was the first field recognised as a field, then the gravitational field was described in the same way. Then came magnetic fields, etc. Masud 15:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have tried to add some to the non-rel. grav. field. I'm not sure if I like the arrow-on-top or heavy type notation for vectors. Is there a Wikipedia convention for which one to use? Masud 15:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still concerned about the scope. Classical fields include sound-waves/acoustics in air, ocean, and earth (geophysics). Classical fields also include wind fields, humidity fields, pressure fields, etc. for predicting weather.  Then, in supernova research, one solves classical field equations for a detonation front (supersonic burning) (of nuclear material, biut that's besides the point). Note that in burning, the number of particles are not constant. (Ditto for rainfail). One also has lots and lots of clasical fields in KdV and fluid dynamics and turbulence and etc. One uses classical (albeit fractal) fields to model the stresses in a sheet of metal, thus leading to the propagation of stress fractures in solids (which are fractal). Speaking of fractals and classical fields: DLA diffusion-limited aggregation. Then, the diffusion-reaction equation. and etc. By focusing on E&M and gravity, this article is ... very very incomplete.  linas 20:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a very good point. But clearly we are attempting an article on fundamental classical fields. I also note that the article on QFT does not have sections on every imaginable quantum field either. People who know about and are looking for propagation of stress fractures in solids would probably look that up independently as opposed to coming to this page to find it; besides assuming someone has written this content, we could easily have short paragraphs and subsections which link to these pages. Masud 02:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name is fine; major cleanup needed though

message: I've edited the EM section to include source terms in the equations, re-organised the headers, and feel that the tags are not required as much anymore.
I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to add the magnetic field as a non-relativistic field theory. Anyone have any thoughts on the matter?
Masud 02:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: presumably because something that has been listed for speedy delete has been transcluded on it, but I cannot find it. DGG (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: seems fixed now, DGG (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was to delete the to-do list that was no longer necessary. You'll notice I've removed the todo template from this page now that the todo list is gone. --Masud (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This page is showing up on the speedy deletion list

message: Wikipedia articles on radiation emphasize the particle point of view.  It would be useful to say something about classical fields of force and the concept that energy can be radiated by such fields.  Is there a classical model that explains the radiation of energy or must it attached to the theory of classical force fields by some independent postulates?
For example, the electric field at point in space can be defined as a force on a "unit test charge", but a time varying electric field doesn't do work (in the sense of work = force times distance ) on a conceptual test charge and it doesn't do work on an actual charge that is not free to move. I suppose the field has the "potential to do work" so perhaps the classical view is that it can transmit potential energy.  
Tashiro (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Classical fields and radiation of energy

message: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8F  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.102.39.253 (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a link to the Russian page on classical field theory: :ru:Классическая_теория_поля. Not much there. RockMagnetist(talk) 14:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: It is an abomination to refer to relativity as classical.  The  title of the article  should  be  changed.47.201.178.44 (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Relativity is not ''Classical''

message: Background and history are completely missing here, but a nice text is given in Quantum field theory which should be here so I'll copy it. Rjdeadly (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background and history