Template talk:Physics in a box

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Field names

I replaced some obscure names for fields with the more common names. It looks as though the creator of this template was trying to force-fit the names of the fields of physics into a consistent pattern, coining new names for fields as necessary to do this. Note that Wikipedia's guidelines discourage using Wikipedia to promote neologisms.

Entries that seemed to me to be either obscure or neologisms: cosmophysics, planetophysics, thermics, and phononics. I replaced these, respectively, with cosmology, planetary science (not a direct fit, perhaps), thermodynamics, and acoustics. The latter was because the column is labeled "applied physics", and really the applied field of acoustics is acoustics. One might argue analogously that "optics" is an applied field of physics, with "photonics" as a higher-tech subfield, but I didn't make that change.

If anyone disagrees with this, I would appreciate it if we could discuss this here. If there is some rationale for using these obscure names, I would be interested to know. (Or perhaps they are not as obscure as they seem to me? Is some community of physicists elsewhere using these terms?)--Srleffler 22:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applied physics

Taking a closer look at this template, I'm a bit concerned about the third column. Most of the things listed in it are not actually "Applied physics". Atomic, molecular, nuclear, particle, condensed matter/solid state, fluid mechanics, and plasma physics are not inherently applied fields, although of course many of these have applied branches. Thermal physics is not clearly more "applied" than thermodynamics. At best, this third column needs a different title. Alternatively, perhaps the template can be reorganized to resolve this difficulty.

I regard this as a pretty severe problem. Since this template's apparent purpose is to explain the organization of physics, it had better get this right. I'm not sure what the best way to fix this is, though. Any suggestions? Is a table like this even the best way to explain the fields of physics?--Srleffler 21:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)