who can distinguish between classical physic and modern physics?
95427
Classical Physics is usually defined as pre-Einsteinian, before space-time was conceived or even thoght to be curvable. I don't know if thats a word.\nWhere as Modern physics is defined as the physics of Einstein and quantum physics, which Einstein did not believe in.
212659
Electromagnetic fields. In the classical view, a charged particle experiences a magnetic force when it is at some non-zero velocity with respect to a magnetic field. This is in addition to any electric force from any electric field that is present.\nRelativity theory unites these two fields as it reveals that a magnetic field is just what an electric field "looks like" to a charged particle when there are non-zero relative velocities involved.\nQuantum field theory (specifically quantum electrodynamics aka QED) further simplifies this by viewing electromagnetic force interactions as exchanges of "virtual photons".\nAs was said before, depending on the scale of the system, any of the other 3 fundamental forces may non-negligibly affect the particle as well.
1033068
All phenomena are based on energy transfer in some form.\n\nPhysics is the study of energy transfer.\n\nJules is correct about math being the fundamental structure of physics.
325774
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
367199
short answer: no\nlong answer: not with the way we currently understand physics
180763
Vedanta and modern physics, including quantum physics are both explanations with similar insights. I do not know many Vedantists or Hindus who would say that science is wrong or that it somehow demeans what they believe, if anything it continually proves and gives new ways of explaining the very things that Hinduism and Vedanta have been teaching for countless generations. Consider the theory of Purusa and Prakriti. There is the teaching that is when these two come into contact with each other that the universe begins manifested. If you read it carefully it begins to sound very much like the big bang theory in science.
1093477
Physics (from the Greek, φυσικός (physikos), "natural", and φύσις (physis), "nature") is the science of the natural world, which deals with the fundamental constituents of the universe, the forces they exert on one another, and the results of these forces. Sometimes, in modern physics, a more sophisticated approach is taken that incorporates elements of the three areas listed above; it relates to the laws of symmetry and conservation, such as those pertaining to energy, momentum, charge, and parity.[1] Physicists study a wide range of physical phenomena spanning all length scales: from the subatomic particles of which all ordinary (i.e., baryonic) matter is made (particle physics) to the behavior of the material universe as a whole (cosmology).
599843
Physics and Maths.\n\nMy mind just loves to solve the problems, especially calculus, and trignometry! I understand these two subject well too.
59368
Physics ........ Is that what you are looking for?
953850
Physics is the study of science\nReligion is the study of philosophy\nJust before the Dark ages they had a parting of the ways
566127
There are many branches of physics.  It depends on exactly what branch you are interested in.  For a very comprehensive guide, check out Wikipedia:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics#Major_fields_of_physics\n\nI am personally interested in theoretical astrophysics and particle physics.  These two are extremely hot right now in the physics world, with enourmous academic resources being devoted to the study of String Theory.  This is because String Theory purports to unify two branches of physics that are widely accepted as true, and yet conflict with each other.  These conflicting branches of physics are:\n\n1.  Quantum Physics\nThis is the study of the very small (molecules / atoms / quarks etc.), and it has been experimentally verified and widely accepted.  But it only accurately describes things on very small scales.\n\n2.  General Relativity\nThis is the study of the very large (planets, stars, galaxies), and it too has been repeatedly verified.  But it only describes things on non-microscopic scales.\n\nWhy should nature be divided between two totally different theories of matter?  This seems to indicate a problem, that our knowledge of the world is still far from complete.  A single "unified" theory should be found which unites the two, and this Unified Field Theory has been the "holy grail" of physicists ever since Einstein began the search years ago.  One leading theory is widely believed to meet this challenge:  String Theory.  It unifies the theories of the very large and the very small, mathematically anyway.  Its only weakness is that it lacks direct experimental confirmation.  But there are indirect observations, such as the distribution of stars throughout space being an interpretation of quantum processes (the theory being that all matter everywhere was once compacted into a microscopic region and then expanded during the Big Bang, retaining in some way at least some of the properties it had when it was extremely small).\n\nThe most influential physicists can be found here:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index\n\n..."influential" meaning that their research is extensively cited in academic papers and journals.\n\nIf you want to get a head start, you should start reading books targeted for common people (as opposed to mathematical professionals).  There are many, many books like this.  But I would point you to the following ones to get you started:\n\n1.  The Fabric of the Cosmos (by Brian Greene)\n2.  The Elegant Universe (by Brian Greene)\n3.  A Brief History of Time (by Stephen Hawking)\n4.  Six Easy Pieces (by Richard Feynman)\n5.  Parallel Worlds (by Michio Kaku)\n\nI recommend that you start with #1 above, if theoretical particle and astro physics are your thing.  Greene has a keen ability to explain complex subjects to non-physics majors in a way that most people can understand.\n\nA search on Amazon.com for any of the above titles will allow you to buy the book (new or used); also, you will likely find Hawking's and Feynman's books in any library, where you can read it for free.\n\nOne thing to remember is that the above books do not need to be read or understood in their entirety.  If you feel like you do not understand something, skip past it until you get to something you do understand.  There is a wealth of fascinating information that will blow your mind if you just invest the time, so don't get intimidated from reading if you run into a road block.\n\nGood luck!  And don't give up until your mind is dizzy with amazement about the nature of the universe around you -- it must have that effect, or you haven't gotten it yet.
439111
Physics is the Science of energy and matter and the interaction between the two.\n\nEthics are the rules or values of which a person or group of people live by.\n\nLogic is simply reasoning.  Being able to determine something by deductive reasoning.
913737
In physics it is acoustics.
1041183
Kinetics,Dynamics,Thermodynamics,Optics,Nuclear,Electromagnetic,\nGravitation,Thin Films, Quantum, Astrophysics.\nto name just a few
342951
You haven't kept up with the latest scientific\ndiscoveries.  Recently, well, in 1887, Albert\nMichelson and Edward Morley proved that no\nmedium (then called "ether" or "aether") was\nneeded for the propagation of electromagnetic\nradiation.
410827
A general part of a particular opens up a whole lot of questions. Beg ginning student of physics guess I would be of thee. So, for your question, #1 is truth for you at this time, the other only asks of itself.
852179
I consider as basic science the mathematics. But after this , the physics seems the more basic science. I understand that people prefer consider physics as basic science since it is more realistic than maths