From looking around, I think I've found the right forum. I've been a skeptic of modern physics since I opened my first physic book 30 years ago and learned a thumb rule I was taught back in 1958, I'm 76 how, was called the Ideal Gas Equation. I look forward to sharing my questions and thoughts about it and a "few" other subjects.

What does "skeptic of modern physics" mean?

welcome and i hope you enjoy the forum.

Skeptic of modern physics.. oh

'Modern' physics? What's that?

Oh, hai, Corkey,

wiki definition:

Modern physics is the post-Newtonian conception of physics. It implies that classical descriptions of phenomena are lacking, and that an accurate, "modern", description of nature requires theories to incorporate elements of quantum mechanics or Einsteinian relativity, or both.

Pictorially (the 'most modern' physics is at lower right, LHC, black holes &c):

Corkey wrote:From looking around, I think I've found the right forum. I've been a skeptic of modern physics since I opened my first physic book 30 years ago and learned a thumb rule I was taught back in 1958, I'm 76 how, was called the Ideal Gas Equation. I look forward to sharing my questions and thoughts about it and a "few" other subjects.

So you opened your first physic (sic) book 30 years ago? And found a rule that you learned 60 years ago? Where did you learn the rule from 60 years ago if not a physics text book?

As far as I'm concerned, physics is physics is physics. There is no so-called 'modern' or, shall we say, 'ancient' physics.

It's all physics.

The difference is between classical and modern physics. The terms are used to separate models of a quantum, relativistic, or both nature from those that do not take these ideas into account (e.g. Newtonian mechanics). Try a search on "modern physics textbook" to see how many titles fall under the category.

There's even a book called "Modern Classical Physics" by Kip Thorne + 1. That's bound to irk some.

This is like getting worked-up over Organic and Inorganic chemistry - it is still chemistry.

Not really, the difference between a classical theory and a quantum theory, for example, is that nature turned out to be quantum mechanical, not classical. See, for example, the Ultraviolet Catastrophe in black body radiation.

Further, there is no classical counterpart to account for Bell's inequalities.

Also, Newtonian mechanics can be used to account for 1/2 the deflection of distant starlight due to the presence of the Sun but it needed full-blown General Relativity theory to get the full deflection, as observed.

And onwards - there would be no spectroscopy without the absorption and emission lines of quantum theory.

Alan B wrote:This is like getting worked-up over Organic and Inorganic chemistry - it is still chemistry.

What? What???

That's just crazy talk. Organic chemistry is a thing of beauty, with pattern and logic. Inorganic chemistry is random facts and post-hoc explanations. Fuck off with your d and f orbitals

And don't even get me started on physical chemistry. I still have occasional nightmares over the stat mech papers.

Inorganic chemistry for me.

When I started organic chemistry things got difficult so I change over to electronics...