This category is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
What is fundamental?
What qualifies as a fundamental physics concept? I ask this because while I can see
approximation being somewhat fundamental (and it is not in this category), it seems odd that
spherical cows are considered fundamental (but is in this category). Should concepts be "fundamental" in the sense of being part of the foundations of physics, the sense of being introductory concepts that newcomers should hear of, or something else entirely?
Saligron23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your question. I confess to adding most of the categories within the last few days. I had several discussions with colleagues on just what constitutes a fundamental physics concept. What we decided was that a fundamental physics concept was one that any physicist would need to be familiar with before embarking on a specialized experimental or theoretical track. By "familiar" we meant being able to solve problems at the end of the chapter on that topic. We did include various approximation methods (eg. perturbation theory, Hartree-Fock, etc.) but we did not include "approximation" itself. That seemed too general and amorphous. I am afraid we added the spherical cow reference as a bit of comedy that has made it into the physics culture and terminology (see references). We think all physicists shoud be familiar with the lesson of the spherical cow (One of the reasons that Heisenburg failed to develop a bomb, among others, was that he made his reactor spherical to make calculations easier). However, one may argue that the concept is more humorous than fundamental and I would not complain if a serious-minded person removed it.
Complexica17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Please take this conversation to
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. I'm not feeling very charitable right now, so my gut impression is that this whole category should be nominated for deletion, precisely because the inclusion criteria are vague. All physics is fundamental, that's how we know its physics and not something else. Instead, if you wish, please devote your energies to
Category:Introductory physics, which is what I think is what people were looking for.
linas20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Linas, I am sorry, but your response has irritated me. Why in the world would experts want to contribute to wikipedia if their contributions are sumararily dismissed. This category was populated by several experienced and working physicists and expresses their opinion on what is a fundamental knowledge base for the field. Introductory concepts are just that, those concepts that introduce you to the field. They are a subset of fundamental concepts.
Complexica14:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, they are a subset. But are they a proper subset? How do you decide that something is NOT fundamental? How about a few examples of physics articles which should NOT be in this category.
JRSpriggs11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
An example of something that is a fundamental physics concept but is not an introductory concept is
curved spacetime.
Examples of items that are not necessarily fundamental concepts are
Laser - The concept of stimulated emission is included, which is the basic underlying concept of the laser, but the actual device built upon the concept is not included. Similarly for
transistor.
Physical astronomical or cosmological phenomena inferred from basic concepts are not included. These include
Black Hole (although the underlying concept of singularity is included),
neutron star,
white dwarf,
red giant, etc.
Other applications of fundamental principles are not included, such as
Tokamak physics,
plasma waves (
plasma (physics) is included),
Alfven waves,
sound waves (although the basic concept of waves is included),
plasmons,
phonons (although the basic concept of
Bloch waves is included), antenna theory, radar, Larmor formula, synchotron radiation (although the more sweeping cerenkov radiation is included),
x-ray,
gamma ray, (these are specific types of electromagnetic radiation), and
solar wind.
Computational techniques such as
artificial viscosity are not included, although fundamental appoximation techniques such as perturbation theory are included.
Derived theories such as
Inhomogeneous electromagnetic wave equation that contain the same information as a more familiar presentation (
Maxwell's equations) are not included unless they lead to a fundamental insight. An example of this is the reformulation of the source-free Maxwell's equations into the
Electromagnetic wave equation leads to the identification of elecromagnetism with light.
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
What is fundamental?
What qualifies as a fundamental physics concept? I ask this because while I can see
approximation being somewhat fundamental (and it is not in this category), it seems odd that
spherical cows are considered fundamental (but is in this category). Should concepts be "fundamental" in the sense of being part of the foundations of physics, the sense of being introductory concepts that newcomers should hear of, or something else entirely?
Saligron23:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your question. I confess to adding most of the categories within the last few days. I had several discussions with colleagues on just what constitutes a fundamental physics concept. What we decided was that a fundamental physics concept was one that any physicist would need to be familiar with before embarking on a specialized experimental or theoretical track. By "familiar" we meant being able to solve problems at the end of the chapter on that topic. We did include various approximation methods (eg. perturbation theory, Hartree-Fock, etc.) but we did not include "approximation" itself. That seemed too general and amorphous. I am afraid we added the spherical cow reference as a bit of comedy that has made it into the physics culture and terminology (see references). We think all physicists shoud be familiar with the lesson of the spherical cow (One of the reasons that Heisenburg failed to develop a bomb, among others, was that he made his reactor spherical to make calculations easier). However, one may argue that the concept is more humorous than fundamental and I would not complain if a serious-minded person removed it.
Complexica17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Please take this conversation to
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. I'm not feeling very charitable right now, so my gut impression is that this whole category should be nominated for deletion, precisely because the inclusion criteria are vague. All physics is fundamental, that's how we know its physics and not something else. Instead, if you wish, please devote your energies to
Category:Introductory physics, which is what I think is what people were looking for.
linas20:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Linas, I am sorry, but your response has irritated me. Why in the world would experts want to contribute to wikipedia if their contributions are sumararily dismissed. This category was populated by several experienced and working physicists and expresses their opinion on what is a fundamental knowledge base for the field. Introductory concepts are just that, those concepts that introduce you to the field. They are a subset of fundamental concepts.
Complexica14:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, they are a subset. But are they a proper subset? How do you decide that something is NOT fundamental? How about a few examples of physics articles which should NOT be in this category.
JRSpriggs11:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)reply
An example of something that is a fundamental physics concept but is not an introductory concept is
curved spacetime.
Examples of items that are not necessarily fundamental concepts are
Laser - The concept of stimulated emission is included, which is the basic underlying concept of the laser, but the actual device built upon the concept is not included. Similarly for
transistor.
Physical astronomical or cosmological phenomena inferred from basic concepts are not included. These include
Black Hole (although the underlying concept of singularity is included),
neutron star,
white dwarf,
red giant, etc.
Other applications of fundamental principles are not included, such as
Tokamak physics,
plasma waves (
plasma (physics) is included),
Alfven waves,
sound waves (although the basic concept of waves is included),
plasmons,
phonons (although the basic concept of
Bloch waves is included), antenna theory, radar, Larmor formula, synchotron radiation (although the more sweeping cerenkov radiation is included),
x-ray,
gamma ray, (these are specific types of electromagnetic radiation), and
solar wind.
Computational techniques such as
artificial viscosity are not included, although fundamental appoximation techniques such as perturbation theory are included.
Derived theories such as
Inhomogeneous electromagnetic wave equation that contain the same information as a more familiar presentation (
Maxwell's equations) are not included unless they lead to a fundamental insight. An example of this is the reformulation of the source-free Maxwell's equations into the
Electromagnetic wave equation leads to the identification of elecromagnetism with light.