File talk:Modernphysicsfields.svg

The caption says it is simplified, but really I think it is so vague as to be meaningless or even wrong. For example, w:en:relativistic quantum chemistry does not require quantum field theory for analysis, despite being small and fast (denoting the electrons involved in the chemical interactions). And black holes may be of any size (denoting their various radii anyway) but exhibit relativistic effects. The singularity central to black holes may be a quantum field theoretic phenomenon, but the curved spacetime around it is merely relativistic; one could argue the deep gravity well causes objects to accelerate to high velocities, but this ignores that gravitation is the primary item being considered relativistically in such a case, whether or not the acceleration is realised as a velocity (hence why different clock speeds are observed at different heights on Earth). Some of this wrongness would be ameliorated by adding more quantitative scales to the diagram to allow example systems of study to be placed on the map. Arlo James Barnes 07:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)