Talk:Statistical physics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Physics because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{Physics}} template, removing {{Physics}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Is »statistical physics« any different than »statistical mechanics«? Does it indeed deserve a separate entry? --Peterlin 14:16, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I would say that from reading this article statistical mechanics is quite possibly a subdiscipline of statistical physics. That is, there are many physical phenomena which can be analyzed using probability methods, not all of which are mechanics problems. moink 16:35, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
As a physicist, I can attest that the terms "Statistical mechanics" and "Statistical physics" are used interchangeably, but that "Statistical mechanics" (or "Stat mech") is preferred. Furthermore, "Statistical mechanics" is not restricted to refer only to the application of probability to problems in classical mechanics. For instance, the book Statistical Mechanics by Kerson Huang devotes a significant amount of space (and a chapter title) to quantum statistical mechanics. I think that these pages should be merged. The Wilschon (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think statistical physics is something wider, and therefore different. For example, percolation models aren't necessarily about statistical mechanics; nor I think are eg the power-spectral properties of random processes that are the subject of the Wiener–Khinchin theorem. There are random processes in physics which don't reduce to the application of probability to either classical or quantum microscopic dynamics. Jheald (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting in this regard might be the topics list for the conference StatPhys 23 held last year. While a majority of the topics probably could fit under the heading "statistical mechanics" (broadly interpreted), I'm not sure it would necessarily include #4 (Pattern formation in systems out of equilibrium), #5 (Dynamical systems and turbulence), #10 (Biologically motivated problems), or some of #11 (Interdisciplinary topics in statistical physics: networks, econophysics, traffic flow, algorithmic problems, astrophysical applications, etc).
I'd tend to identify statistical mechanics with the application of statistical methods to molecular-scale models. Some of the Statistical Physics topics I think are broader than that, and in some cases not even analogous to established molecular-scale results. Jheald (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] speak in natures own words when discussing - not to become vague

First I think that the exact content of the text about "statistical physics" is not very important because how ever you formulate it - it would result in rather vague texts. This may be because all questions put forward (such as this one - what is staistical physics ?) by the investigating human beings are not optimised to get clear cut answers.

When that is the case you would get a more consice and meaningful text if you stick to very simple statements about nature, and make a text about them, letting the reader know that you are talking about a vaguely defined term.

For instance, In nature occurs phenomena such that we may describe as "statistical" either due to the appearance and interactions of many objects in a physical system, or due to quantum mechanical effects...

Then build up a popularized text according to this. Then you may possibly add a discussion of why subjects like "econophysics" and similar have more in common with statistical physics compared to theories of neural networks. Do they?

Regards Erik Eneroth, Askersund! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.146.164 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)