What is Classical Science?

[iwa]

Hello guys,

 

I would like to know what does it mean by classical science? Is it dated back to the early civilization or during the 18th - 19th century? I have been browsing through the internet searching for journals and articles on it but I unable to find the one with good explanation. Is there any other term used to define classical science?. I hope someone can help to explain this to me. Thank you.

[StringJunky]

Look up 'classical mechanics vs quantum mechanics'. Classical mechanics is another name for classical physics.

Edited September 20, 2016 by StringJunky

[swansont]

There is a bit of confusing terminology that's used. As StringJunky said, one of them is Classical vs Quantum. If the physics does not include quantum mechanics, it's classical.

 

Another term is "modern physics", which is a time divide, basically at 1905, when Einstein introduced relativity. So modern physics includes both relativity and quantum mechanics. Relativity is a classical theory, as it does not use quantum mechanics, but it is different that the classical physics that preceded it. So, to confuse things, you will occasionally run across "classical physics" being used to mean "preceding modern physics"

[StringJunky]

There is a bit of confusing terminology that's used. As StringJunky said, one of them is Classical vs Quantum. If the ohysics does not include quantum mechanics, it's classical.

 

Another term is "modern physics", which is a time divide, basically at 1905, when Einstein introduced relativity. So modern physics includes both relativity and quantum mechanics. Relativity is a classical theory, as it does not use quantum mechanics, but it is different that the classical physics that preceded it. So, to confuse things, you will occasionally run across "classical physics" being used to mean "preceding modern physics"

Would saying "Classical is the physics of stuff bigger than an atom and Quantum is the physics of stuff smaller than an atom" be a useful, general distinction between the two?

 

iwa

 

There are two types of physics because scientists are, as yet, unable to reconcile quantum and classical physics because they both say different things in some areas but each one is very accurate within its domain, as I've just described to swansont. This means they have to choose one over the other depending on what they are looking at.

Edited September 20, 2016 by StringJunky

[swansont]

Would saying "Classical is the physics of stuff bigger than an atom and Quantum is the physics of stuff smaller than an atom" be a useful, general distinction between the two?

 

iwa

 

There are two types of physics because scientists are, as yet, unable to reconcile quantum and classical physics because they both say different things in some areas but each one is very accurate within its domain, as I've just described to swansont. This means they have to choose one over the other depending on what they are looking at.

 

 

That's often true, but scientists are clever and do careful experiments and as a result we've seen quantum behavior in macroscopic objects.

[StringJunky]

 

 

That's often true, but scientists are clever and do careful experiments and as a result we've seen quantum behavior in macroscopic objects.

Right.

[imatfaal]

I have a horrible feeling that some folk might use the phrase Classical Science to refer to the science of Ancient Rome and Greece. Lots of what was done in Ancient Rome and Greece was more philosophy than science (ie no real link to reality - no empiricism) but then there were also amazing feats of science such Aristarchus (Heliocentric Model) , Erathosthenes (Earth's Axial tilt and radius) Pliny Snr (Naturalist) etc.

[DrKrettin]

I have a horrible feeling that some folk might use the phrase Classical Science to refer to the science of Ancient Rome and Greece. Lots of what was done in Ancient Rome and Greece was more philosophy than science (ie no real link to reality - no empiricism) but then there were also amazing feats of science such Aristarchus (Heliocentric Model) , Erathosthenes (Earth's Axial tilt and radius) Pliny Snr (Naturalist) etc.

 

There is that danger, of course, but the problem there is that is was all rather eclectic with no particular universal principles. That ended with Newton's laws of motion, and I have always understood Classical Science as being based on these, as distinct from modern science based on quantum mechanics and relativity where relevant. Having said that, I'm talking of physics, and I'm not at all sure where Darwin stands if we are trying to define Classical Science generally.

[Hayman]

Aside from physics, the deeper you go into any scientific discipline, you will run into more and more of these examples. Theories change and develop all of the time in science, or something entirely new comes along, and it can really mess up classification systems. That is the wonderful thing about science (one of many obviously), its never finished.

[studiot]

Aside from physics, the deeper you go into any scientific discipline, you will run into more and more of these examples. Theories change and develop all of the time in science, or something entirely new comes along, and it can really mess up classification systems. That is the wonderful thing about science (one of many obviously), its never finished.

 

I see you have just joined - Welcome

A good start.

+1

[Sriman Dutta]

Physics has gone through various stages, the earliest and the simplest being classical physics.