Talk:Computational physics

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Top‑importance This article 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors: [[DCOMP#DCOMP|Division of Computational Physics (DCOMP)]] The anchor (#DCOMP) has been deleted by other users before. [[Perturbation theory#Example of degenerate perturbation theory – Stark effect in resonant rotating wave|here]] The anchor (#Example of degenerate perturbation theory – Stark effect in resonant rotating wave) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Serrion.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The writing style in the "Challenges in computational physics" is overly verbose: "it may be somewhat of an understatement to say this is a bit of a problem" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.81.43 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 September 2005

• In agreement with Jorgecarleitao's judgment in March on this article needing work, I have decided to bring back this section, albeit in a rewritten form; it could provide a better context. Hope it works... Ema--or (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

the University of Adelaide has a degree specially designed to tackle this type of physics BSc. (High Performance Computational Phsycs) (Honours) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eevo (talk • contribs) 12:34, 6 March 2006

Thought I should let readers know that the University of York (UK) does a good degree in Computational Physics. I did my Bachelor's there some years ago. Even though I have worked in a variety of areas since then, I still use the ideas and methods that the Department taught me - in fact I use them in my doctoral work now. I understand that a lot of graduates don't really use their degree subject a lot after University (no offence anyone!). If you're unsure whether to go to York or another University, be aware that York has over 350 pubs. Just thought I'd mention it. Jas 02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

A Croatian ip from the 193.198.(...) range replaces the article continuously with texts from [1]. As I can't find a GFDL compatible license there, I've reverted. Also and independent of this I think the copyvio revision is no improvement compared to the prior revisions. --Oxymoron⁸³ 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

As a relatively new editor, I'm not sure whether or not the fourth reference is sufficiently high quality for use in wikipedia. This source looks like a self-published one, which makes my dubious as to whether it can be considered stable enough.

Clarification would be appreciated. Serrion (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree a better citation would be better. But on the other hand, the author is a specialist in the field, the work is from 1997 which means that it is stable for at least 19 years, and the introduction makes a good case on where it is being cited. Jorgecarleitao (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I see your point on the quality of the source. That being said, I think the section it appears in could be worded better. In particular, the last sentence starts a clarification but goes about it in a relatively convoluted manner. Fair warning: I'm going to be moving some edits over in the next couple of days, but I'll try to keep them individually small so you can easily revert any you may disagree with. Thanks for the input! Serrion (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree that the section could be improved. Don't mind modifying what you believe should be modified here. If it makes you more comfortable, work the text in a scratch page and share it here before modifying in the main text, and someone (me?) will review it. In any case, go for it, and thanks for the effort! Jorgecarleitao (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply