User talk:Desdinova

Welcome!

Hello, Desdinova, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein

Hi - I was trying to figure out how to redo that lead paragraph in scientific philosophy when it disappeared :-)
Actually the Photoelectric effect paper did verify quantization of energy - did it not?
Now, off to the real world, cheers - Vsmith 13:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bout that ;-) I'm getting frustrated with some peoples inability to get a clue. (mentioning no names, but not me and you ;-) )

Yep I agree - its big success, I just disagree with the bit about atoms. I've referenced a bit about Dalton et al. about 100 years before Einstein. And the photons bit is pretty suspect too as the nature of light was discussed by Huygens and Newton as corpuscular 200 years previously;-)

Classical physics

I noticed in passing your dispute with Jeff Relf, and I am writing you here because I do not want to encourage him with seeming support, but: The part of the dispute I saw centered on whether “classical physics” includes relativity; is that the crux of your disagreement with him? Because Webster's New Collgiate Dictionary (1975) defines “classical” as “...4b(2): not involving relativity, wave mechanics, or quantum theory <~ physics> ...” And Bartleby's American Heritage Dictionary online defines classical as “... 6. Of or relating to physics that can be described without the use of quantum mechanics or relativity....” --teb728 20:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope its not the crux. His mangling of physics goes WAY deeper then that. What was disturbing is that he is quite prepared to edit multiple documents to support a position that is wrong.

As the definition says, Classical physics really does not include any theories with "h" in it. I've mentioned it on the Talk page. I was chastised in the preliminary report of my dissertation for putting relativity on the wrong side (i.e in Modern physics).

As I have said, relativity comes from a classical background (Poincare, Lorentz and Maxwell) hence it is classified (poor pun!) as Classical physics.

I would suggest that perhaps part of the confusion is that those dictionaries are not science texts, per se.

It also does not change the fact that Einstein was (paradoxically some would claim) a classical physicist. He opposed one of the main tenets of QM (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) and was firmly of a deterministic view of the universe. HUP and GR disagree on the nature of space-time at small scales.

Desdinova 20:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, you want a science text, per se? How about Robert Martin Eisberg, Fundamentals of Modern Physics, 1961, Wiley, p. 1. "In modern physics the subjects studied are: the theory of relativity and associated phenomena, the quantum theories and quantum phenomena, and, in particular, the application of the relativity and quantum theories to the atom and the nucleus."

I'm not reporting definitions selectively: these were the first (and only) three definitions of classical/modern physics I found (outside of Wikipedia). Even here, see Modern physics. So your notion that modern physics does not include relativity is at best controversial. Do you have a published source for it?

I don't know where you got the definition "Classical physics really does not include any theories with 'h' in it," but it is wrong in the sense that 'h' appears in Planck's theory of black-body radiation, which is classical because the quantization there was merely a theoretical construct.

Perhaps you are confused over the fact that modern quantum theory, as opposed to modern physics, begins with Heisenberg. --teb728 23:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woah - calm the attitude. I did not mean to accuse you of selective reporting, and in fact all I said was perhaps those dictionaries were not reporting the "physical" definition of the term (for want of a better description).

I was just pointing out my view. I'd like to see a more recent printing if that Wiley book as well. The "h" thing, Ok I can see your reasoning there but as you said the quantization was theoretical.

My copy of "Road to Reality" by Penrose has a Chapter 19 "The Classical fields of Maxwell and Einstein" and says (Pg 440) "What are now called the classical fields are, indeed, the electromagnetic field of Maxwell and the gravitational field of Einstein".

I think the problem here comes from the rather ambiguous use of the word "Modern" as well. If you read the Classical Physics page it adds more depth to the argument then the Modern Physics page.

The definition comes from Wiki's own page on Classical Physics and as I said, in my own studies in University the above definition is the one I was also taught as well. My dissertation was on GR orbital motions so I placed in my dissertation that Relativity was "Modern Physics" when I was corrected by my project supervisor that it comes under Classical Physics.

It doesn't help when some people use a split of "Newtonian Physics" as well to further subdivide it.

Perhaps you'd better argue that on the relevant wiki page - but the fact remains thats the view that appears in several books as well. As its 12:00 midnight here unfortunately I'm not able to go to my college library.

As it stands, there is no quantisation in Relativity. Relativity and QM disagree on the nature of space time on small scales. Relativity's roots comes from classical sources, as I said, Lorentz, Poincare and Maxwell - to name a few.

As I originally said, this is just a very small part of my argument against Jeff. Einstein himself had a very deterministic view of the universe.

Desdinova 23:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Just found in my copy of Kip Thorne: "Black holes and time warps"

Classical: Subject to the laws of physics that govern macroscopic objects, non-quantum mechanical.

And my copy of Hartle:"Gravity: An introduction to Einstein's General Relativity" (My fourth year GR textbook) opens chapter 1 with:

"Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject of this book"

Desdinova 23:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Will agree with you that its not a particularly clear or well defined distinction. Damn those physicists ;-)

Desdinova 00:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate this. I always think of one more thing to add.

I always believed black-body radiation was "modern physics" anyway as it sought to answer the problems inherent in the "classical" solution for it, the UV catastrophe and all that. As the only text books I have right in front of me deal with either GR or sub-mm galaxies - I will have to confirm that at a later date....

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.html from Virginia seems to confirm that. I could dig out my thermodynamics notes, but they're in the attic....

Ultraviolet Catastrophe starts with "The ultraviolet catastrophe, also called the Rayleigh-Jeans catastrophe, was a prediction of early 20th century classical physics that an ideal black body at thermal equilibrium will emit radiation with infinite power. As experimental observation showed this to be clearly false, it was one of the first clear indications of problems with classical physics. The solution to this problem led to the development of an early form of quantum mechanics." and adds that " In fact Planck never concerned himself with this aspect of the problem, because he did not believe that the equipartition theorem was fundamental - his motivation for introducing "quanta" was entirely different. It was several years later that physicists realized that Planck's law resolved a fundamental crisis of classical physics."

I will see if my thermodynamics/statistical mechanics notes clarify this further...

Desdinova 00:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry that you found attitude in my comments; none was intended.

Like you I learned definitions of classical/modern physics in university. In my case (in the early 1960s) relativity was modern. Then, Eisberg (1961) was a text for senior physics majors—a preview of what was taught seriously later on to grad students. I begin to suspect that there is a change of definitions here due to changing curricula: “classical physics” is what is taught to undergraduates; “modern physics,” what is taught to grad students.

You make a big deal about determinism vs probabilism and label Einstein as “classical” because he was a determinist. In your thinking, is the pre-Heisenberg quantum theory (Einstein’s photo-electric effect, the Bohr atom, etc) also classical? This distinction is significant in the changes JR is trying to make: He clearly agrees that Einstein was a determinist but rejects the semantic inference that Einstein's determinism makes him a “classical” physicist. And he replaces the paragraph with that inference with a list of Einstein’s contributions to quantum theory.

Although I understand that JR has a bad reputation elsewhere, it seems to me that what he is trying to put in the Einstein article is not hopelessly bad. In particular, his comments about Einstein’s contributions to quantum theory are useful—though they belong in the Biography section (perhaps in a new subsection at the end?) and certainly not in the Personality section. I suspect that if the questionable “classical” label were removed, he might agree to that. --teb728 04:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between teaching classical and modern physics at undergrad/postgrad is not really held so stringently today. I'm doing a 4yr UG Masters and both have been covered at a ratio of 60%/40% so far.

I say "almost a classical physicist" - through his quotes, arguments with Heisenberg and Bohr and the EPR paradox Einstein displayed a deep reticence to let go to the classical idea that the universe was knowable on all levels. The EPR paradox is a good read and a nice insight into how tenacious Einstein was onto holding onto to the idea that the Universe could be catalogued and measured.

For me the original quantum theory as you mentioned is also classical, It show a lack of the "uncertainty" ;) of what I feel is a distinguishing quality of "Modern Physics". The Bohr model is definitely classical (to me anyway). Although they show hints of the direction that physics was soon to take, their probabilistic nature underneath (at the time) may still have had some underlying cause that could be examined.

JR's insistence re: the entry is the thin end of the wedge. I have had discussions with him before and unfortunately he has no idea of the word compromise. His comments on pseudorandom are not attributable to Einstein anywhere and a prime example of "Original research". He is also determined to change the sections focus and what does not help is that Jeff's knowledge of the underlying science has been displayed in the past to be quite superficial - hence mine, and others, show deep disquiet at seeing him edit science articles indiscriminately.

The Talk pages on the section are required reading to see exactly how little he is prepared to listen to others.

Desdinova 09:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Trying to reach an infobox consensus here: [1]. Please can you weigh-in with your opinion? SureFire 00:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouthshire

Hi. I think the points you made are more relevant to Monmouthshire_(historic)#Ambiguity_over_Welsh_status.Lozleader 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - agreed - thanks for the pointer! --Desdinova 04:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)