Talk:Theoretical physics

Einstein
The Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the existence of an ether before SR. The first paragraph's ending might be implying otherwise, as it is being stretched to make a point. (better example?)

-About the sentence "Sometimes it is the vision of mathematicians which provides the clue; e.g., the notion, due to Riemann and others, that space itself might be curved," doesn't this imply that Einstein got the "clue" of the "curvedness" of spacetime from Riemann and others? I don't think this is correct. -Ur


 * Also, I think the sentence "For example, while developing special relativity, Albert Einstein was concerned with the Lorentz transformation which left Maxwell's equations invariant, but was apparently uninterested in the Michelson-Morley experiment on Earth's drift through a luminiferous ether." is not a good example to "mathematical rigor." Einstein was following his physical intuition as to how the theory ought to behave, which certainly did not stem from any mathematical rigor. I think this sentence should be changed or reworded. I suggest a different example, perhaps from the work of Dirac, be given. 71.103.0.107 (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Ur

The sentence about Einstein that ends with, “… but was apparently uninterested in the Michelson–Morley experiment on Earth's drift through a luminiferous ether.” is incorrect. Einstein mentions the M-M experiments in his June, 1905 paper. He says, “Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.” Scrofulous (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 February 2013

 * Ratko Janev (1939– )

Operahome1 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Camyoung54   talk  05:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2013
Ratko Janev (1939- )

Operahome1 (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes him so notable? He has only 8 hits on Goolgle Books. Materialscientist (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2013
see Ratko Janev on Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=r.k.+janev&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

79.101.69.61 (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

see Ratko Janev on Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=r.k.+janev&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Atomic Physics Significant Atomic Physicists
 * I do not see how Ratko Yanev, whereas encyclopedically notable, is on the same level as Einstein, Planck, or Heisenberg. We can not put all theoretical physics professors in all universities to this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ratko Janev formulated basic laws of atomic physics of the fusion plasmas. Resolved problem of impurities of fusion plasmas and proposed fusion divertor solutions for European Tokamak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.69.61 (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, he is certainly notable, but how many theorists do we have on this level? A thousand?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

On the other side, we have here more than few theorists with less contribution(s) than R. Janev. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.69.61 (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would rather think of removing them as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that up to 100 names would be satisfactory to illustrate the development of theoretical physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.69.61 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Among first 40 names, one should certainly include Ratko Janev, who contributed with more than 600 scholarly articles and represent one stage of development of the atomic physics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.83.62 (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest, as a matter of farness and justice, deletion of all chapter named Prominent Theoretical Physicists. There are no sufficient clear criteria of how to a judge contributions of large number of scientist, and be absolutely or even close to be impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.83.62 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with the unnamed poster(s) pushing Janev. He has a Wikipedia English article, but I'm not sure what makes him so notable. I discuss this elsewhere in this section. Ema--or (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2013
Ratko Janev (1939- )

Operahome (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia should add Ratko Janev to the list of Prominent Theoretical Physicists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.69.61 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reduction of the number of names in the list, seems to be unnecessary, and it is always arbitrary when one has to judge scientific contributions of scientists covering wide area of the physics such as theoretical physics. I would rather suggest deletion of all chapter named Prominent Theoretical Physicists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.83.62 (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the suggestion that the list should be removed. TOW  talk   21:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the list as its inclusion criteria ("prominent" theoretical physicists) is quite vague and open to interpretation. Any theoretical physicists including Janev can be listed on List of theoretical physicists, which is already linked under the "See also" section of this article. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite. I remember that there was a notice on the article on popping, requiring notable dancers to be named in interviews. Notability for theoretical physics might be similarly applied, except in addition we can include (third-person) biographies, awards, or other honours (e.g. eponyms). Since this page has been moved, there is no need for it to be implemented here. However, this page is important enough for it be mentioned here. Ema--or (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Gravity faster than light
I not sure about the Math so here goes everyone says the speed limit for the universe is the speed of light what if you don't measure the photons but the wave and what has anyone looked at grav that's without time grav is a wave and no matter how far back in time by the fact everything is measured by a little photon that has mass where the wave does not grav has no mass but it does effect it from 15 billions years ago I think that's crap if all you look at is light its grav and light waves think grav is there all we have to do is get that and we can go anywhere    need the math for what that would take cant be to much with grav so low  just have to get how to grav out then light years are gone forget light its grav and light waves  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.66.98.214 (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016
It may be a good idea to mention somewhere in this article that sometimes important results in theoretical physics are achieved not even by bona fide calculation but via semi-qualitative estimates (which often are based on dimensions-based arguments). An excellent example of semi-qualitative reasoning is the Kolmogorov theory of turbulence - a theory which still lacks a full mathematical justification, but which enjoys good support from experiment.

Such a note would help the reader to appreciate the crucial difference between theoretical physics and mathematical physics (the latter usually requiring a higher degree of rigour).

96.255.164.148 (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. - semi protected edit requests should be unambiguous and very clear. --allthefoxes (Talk) 06:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2017
The link to Tesla's dynamic theory of gravity under Fringe Theories is no longer current. It is anchored to #Views_on_experimental_and_theoretical_physics on Tesla's page, but the correct anchor is #On_experimental_and_theoretical_physics. The proper URL is provided below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla#On_experimental_and_theoretical_physics Enixxe (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"Quantum Gravity" - Mainstream theory?
First of all, it's not properly capitalized. It should just be "quantum gravity". It's also out of alphabetical order. Second, "quantum gravity" is a field of physics, not a single theory, mainstream or otherwise. Third, no theory of quantum gravity has yet supplanted general relativity in mainstream science, so it wouldn't belong in the that category. Finally, string theory and loop quantum gravity are already included as examples of proposed theories of quantum gravity. At 14:03 on 29 July 2013‎, Ammarsakaji1967 threw "Quantum Gravity" into the list and either no one ever noticed or no one had the ability to correct the mistake. Requested edit: delete it from the list. 108.34.151.191 (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are several items in the list that do not seem to be mainstream theories: Black hole thermodynamics, Dark energy, Dark matter, Quantum gravity.  It might be interesting to look through the edit history and see who put them there and why.—Anita5192 (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Black hole thermodynamics was added, Quantum Gravity added . Not sure when Dark matter and energy were added. Stickee (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Dark energy was added . Dark matter was added .  As all four edits were unexplained and these examples are not mainstream, I have removed them.—Anita5192 (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Long Examples sections
There are three Examples sections in this article, and two of them are now quite long. I suggest moving all three sections to their own list articles and linking to them.—Anita5192 (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggested edit/removal of "fringe" section
The theories listed under "fringe theories" mostly point to some pseudo-scientific/esoteric/religious constructs, like "Orogone", "Qi", "Odic Force" or "Prana" or to views of certain individuals like Tesla. I think the only entry that should stay is the one on the Aether, which is of interest for the history of sciene/physics. Hence, I would propose to remove the "fringe theory" section entirely and mention the "Aether" theory in the history section, if at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.186.106 (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I recommend leaving the Fringe theories section mostly as is, and removing Odic force, Orgone, Prana, and Qi from the examples, as these are not even fringe theories, they are simply pseudoscience.—Anita5192 (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I was going to write a long section, but seems beat me to the punch and said in two lines what would have taking me two paragraphs. Whatever happens to the section, there should be a strong distinction between obsolete (e.g. aether), fringe (modified Newtonian dynamics), versus pseudo (e.g. orgone) physics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * (Sorry to not be logged) I cannot understand the relevance of pseudoscience in theoretical physics. I have never seen any of this is in any course or any published paper in physics. Physics is only concerned by science, and theoretical physics is part of physics. Thus even protoscience cannot be part of theoretical physics.  In my opinion, the fringe theory section only adds confusion. Many people are already confused about what is a theory in physics. Some people think they can be as great as Galileo by developing their personal views and claiming it is a theory.    References should be easy to find about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.43.226.175 (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed Odic force, Orgone, Prana, and Qi (see above). I think the current descriptions at the beginning of the sections Mainstream theories, Proposed theories, and Fringe theories clarify the standing of each for a neophyte. There is also a link to pseudoscience to clarify the distinction between that and real science. Does the article need further clarification?—Anita5192 (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Phenomenology
change ((phenomenology|phenomenologists)) to ((Phenomenology (physics)|phenomenologists))


 * Done.—Anita5192 (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This page is a mess and should probably be deleted - 7 June 2024
I will disregard the philosophical talk in the Overview section and the random walk through history in History and just focus on the sections afterwards since they are less open to interpretation. In particular, the subsequent sections are clearly written by a non-expert, but also by someone who doesn't even try to make clear distinctions between the links. In my opinion, this is reflected in the earlier sections as well, but I won't object since writing is a matter of taste. Let's give some examples (non-exhaustive):

1. There is some confusion about what constitutes a "theory" and what things just have "theory" in the name despite not being a "theory of physics" and other general purely mathematical frameworks. For example, the first entry is the "Big Bang" which is totally a respectable example of a "Mainstream theory" or model that describes the early universe. The next entry, "Chaos theory," is a branch of mathematics and is a framework/toolset that can be applied to physics in different scenarios. It is not up for debate, it is just applied mathematics, it is not even in the same realm as the Big Bang conceptually.

This issue repeats through the entire list. For example, classical mechanics, classical field theory, field theory, Landau-Ginzburg theory, Perturbation theory (quantum mechanics), Quantum field theory, Quantum information theory, Quantum mechanics, Relativistic quantum mechanics, Scattering theory, Statistical physics, are essentially all mathematical frameworks. It is essentially no different from listing "calculus" as a theory of physics. All of these could possibly be made relevant to the discussion if they were supplanted with huge amounts of surrounding text, for example: "Classical mechanics - as applied to model and describe objects and their interactions at intermediate length scales in nature." Again, this is not a physical claim about their accuracy at describing nature, the fact of the matter is that these are mathematical frameworks. Dynamo theory, kinetic theory of gases, and the standard model are much better examples of things on the level of the Big Bang.

There are also more middle ground examples. For example, is Quantum chromodynamics a physics theory? In particular, it's just a particular example of a quantum field theory (which is a framework like calculus). But perhaps "Quantum chromodynamics as applied to describe the strong interaction," but, again, this is a middle ground example because Quantum chromodynamics is usually implied in nature.

2. The list has entries which overlap with high redundancy. For example, why list relativistic quantum mechanics if both quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are included? Why list field theory if classical field theory and quantum field theory are listed? Essentially by definition, there is nothing else.

3. The list of proposed theories similarly makes no sense. Chern-Simons theory is not a theory which is up for debate, in the sense that it's just a particular Lagrangian/action in field theory. This is like calling the Lagrangian for the harmonic oscillator a theory. Of course, the article probably means "as applied to nature" (since it also has seen humongous applications to pure mathematics, since it's literally just collections of related equations and concepts). But even with that, Chern–Simons theory is largely accepted to be the effective field theory describing the quantum hall effect since at least the 90s (note that this is a highly cited review, and the original connection was understood and tested even before this).

4. There are other examples echoing the issues above, I will be more terse now: "graviton" is not a theory, it's an excitation/particle in dynamical theories of quantum gravity. This is like calling the "photon" a theory, it is not a theory, it is an excitation of the electromagnetic field in quantum electrodynamics. Similarly for magnetic monopole. They are not theories, they are theoretical concepts that arise in some theories.

5. Why is Luminiferous aether, a well motivated, but essentially disproven (to the extent that can be done in science), theory, an example of a fringe theory? It is not a speculative/fringe subject, it is a historical wrong idea about how nature actually works. Moreover, why is it nested as a sublist of Aether (classical element), a medieval concept? It is true that the names share historical origins (because they are intuitively similar), but this is like sublisting Chaos theory under Chaos (cosmogony).

6. In my opinion, the article also too strongly suggests that fringe theories of physics are on the same footing as proposed theories of physics and mainstream theories of physics. It is also a very bizarre cross-section of fringe theories. LightBlob (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)