This category is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
(Some of these probably should really be in a Particle physics category. But they're closely related, and in the recent Category explosion I have become averse to creating more. I also personally don't feel that Categories are terribly useful unless they have a goodly number of articles in them, a couple of dozen or so.)Securiger 01:00, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree, right now general particle things are being put in this too-specific category, as it should only have to to with nucleons. Perhaps nuclear physics needs to be a sub-category of particle physics, even if that's not exactly how nuclear physics feel about themselves. --Laura Scudder | Talk17:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think nuclear physics is not a subcategory of quantum physics, although it makes heavy use of quantum physics. It is also not a subcategory of particle physics (see my comment in Category talk:Particle physics). It has a lot of particle aspects (e.g. collider experiments), but it also has clearly non-particle aspects (thermodynamics). I'm not decided on the Atomic physics, although I have the strong feeling I would not like it to be in there either, since I was taught that atomic physics is about the electron-nucleon system. So I would like to see it in Category:Subfields of physicsAlex4532 (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
