Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting.

[Silverbackman]

"Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting."

"Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting."

-- Ernest Rutherford

How valid is this statement. I think it has a lot of validity considering the fact that you are learning the fundamental laws of the universe and nature. You are basically studying the "Mind Of God". Where as other sciences such as social science, geology, biology and even chemistry are more specific into detail that may be more mundane that what physics teaches. Physics seems to be the big picture of science, and thus its essence as well.

 

[arildno]

A silly statement of Rutherford's indicative of the all-too common physicist's flaw of wholly unjustified arrogance.

The inability of physics to come up with any useful predictions within fields like biology or the social sciences (due to the mathematically unmanageable wealth of parameters involved) is a case in point.

And who cares, really, whether a star light-years away from us has a lot higher density than our own sun (and that we may predict&compute it)?

The activity to develop conceptual tools effective in the study of fields like biology or the social sciences is no less intellectually challenging than developing the mathematical tools usable in physics.
Ingenious experiments must be thought out to show this or that in biology, and Emile Durkheim's thoughtful analysis of the suicide phenomenon must be considered good research.

 

[-Job-]

Of course physics explains the fundamental laws of the universe with the more fundamental field of Mathematics, if you want to go thataway.

 

[arildno]

Well, it is debatable if maths should be called a "science". In many respects, it is more akin to art/philosophy.

 

[alias25]

maths is beautiful.
i agree though that statement isn't very good. shows a lot of arrogance.

 

[asrafally]

i completely agree since the amount of mental gymanastics that is required
Mathmetics is only abstract unless it is being used in physics

 

[octelcogopod]

I'm kind of opposed to the whole "physics is the holy grail" type thing..
It's done a very good job of explaining larger parts of the physical world, but what if there are other things to study?

Like the mind and um, dare I say "soul?"

 

[Pythagorean]

as far as I can tell, physics is the fundamental science. Chemistry and Biology can be broken down into physical systems, sure, but it seems like it would be a hassle and take more time, whereas biologists and chemists have excellent models of their systems that work well enough for scientific advancement.

Biology itself is one of the most diverse and fastly developing sicences right now, and its been very benficial to humanity. It wouldn't be like this if physicists were researching biology. It would take wayyyy longer.

 

[neutrino]

It could've been influenced by the state of the other sciences compared to physics during Rutherford's time. (?)

 

[Pythagorean]

It could've been influenced by the state of the other sciences compared to physics during Rutherford's time. (?)

Perhaps. Physics was revolutionizing a lot of other sciences around the time. In fact, I think the major developments in genetics/DNA/molecular biology were a result of quantum physics.

I know in the class, physical chemistry (required for chem majors) they use schroedinger's equation a lot.

 

[Silverbackman]

I'm kind of opposed to the whole "physics is the holy grail" type thing..
It's done a very good job of explaining larger parts of the physical world, but what if there are other things to study?

Like the mind and um, dare I say "soul?"

Keep in mind though that the mind is a product of the brain. How the brain is set will determine how a person acts and since your brain is made of matter, it does lead much of its research on the physical aspects of it. And your brain does follow the laws of physics ;).

One aspect about the mind that physics could probably never explain however is conscious self awareness.

 

[octelcogopod]

Keep in mind though that the mind is a product of the brain. How the brain is set will determine how a person acts and since your brain is made of matter, it does lead much of its research on the physical aspects of it. And your brain does follow the laws of physics ;).

One aspect about the mind that physics could probably never explain however is conscious self awareness.

I don't know man.. Definitions seem to change as opinions do, what we need is one grand and complete definition on what the mind, conscious experience and self awareness is, then we might be able to explain it physically.

I mean once we understand something completely there is no other way..

 

[pibomb]

I sort of think that some sciences are rooted in physics but they shouldn't be considered subordinate because of this. I think biology and chemistry are equally important as much as physics.

Although...cosmetic science is pretty useless (for the stupid shampoo commercials and skin crap on tv). I coukd argue some, like this science, are useless but ultmately, phyiscs, biology, and chemistry are the most important.

 

[arildno]

Hmm..cosmetic science makes a lot more people happy than theoretical physics ever did..
What you regard as "important" depends on which parameters you think define "importance".

 

[selfAdjoint]

Hmm..cosmetic science makes a lot more people happy than theoretical physics ever did..
What you regard as "important" depends on which parameters you think define "importance".

Surely you jest?

Theoretical Physicist Maxwell -> Hertz -> Marconi -> Electronics -> Radio, TV and Computers. Half the population doen't go to cosmetologists, but everybody watches TV and/or uses a computer.

 

[arildno]

Okay, I was sort of stretching the truth a bit, just for disagreement's sake.


Besides, is television more important than an eyeliner?

 

[neutrino]

They needed Radio, need TV, and more recently the web, to advertise their products! They need photoshop->which runs on a computer-> to fool the people.

 

[arildno]

But they need the eyeliner to APPEAR on the television!


(Hmm..methinks I'm getting silly here..)

 

[neutrino]

(Hmm..methinks I'm getting silly here..)

Glad to know. ;)

 

[Karlisbad]

" Physics is the Queen of Science, and Mathematical Physics is just the Queen of the Physics"...

 

[arildno]

Yeah, I know, and Gauss was the greatest queen of them all.

 

[desA]

Physicists & Mathematicians seem to have different ways of looking at the world.

In general, Physicists want to understand how the universe works & interacts with things. They then set about bulilding a theoretical (physical) model of the situation, with a few assumtions. The next step is to develop relationships between all varibles in the model - ending up with an equation describing the model. He assumes a solution exists in some shape, or form.

The Mathematician then takes this equation & works out ways of providing a solution, & its existence.

The Physicist then tests the solution against the physical model & modifies the assumptions accordingly. This process then iterates.

Both groups think completely differently about things, but both depend upon each other.

 

[matt grime]

Thankfully at least one person has pointed out that this quotation can only be examined in terms of when Rutherford said it. No one has, for instance, mentioned the fact that he used 'stamp-collecting' as his anology. If he merely wished to dismiss other subjects as less important, which is how some people here seem it take the quotation, why did he not phrase it differently? I suspect his choice of words was possibly to do with physics looking to explain, and some other sciences (botany, taxonomy for example) looking to merely catalogue (at the time when he made the statement).

 

[matt grime]

They [physicists] then set about bulilding a theoretical (physical) model of the situation, with a few assumtions. The next step is to develop relationships between all varibles in the model - ending up with an equation describing the model. He assumes a solution exists in some shape, or form.

The Mathematician then takes this equation & works out ways of providing a solution, & its existence.

The Physicist then tests the solution against the physical model & modifies the assumptions accordingly. This process then iterates.

Both groups think completely differently about things, but both depend upon each other.

I assure you that this is most definitely not what drives research in mathematics, and hasn't been since the early 1900s.

 

[desA]

Who thinks out & develops the equations in the first place?

Take the conservation laws as an example - mass, momentum, energy...

Is current Mathematics research internally, or outwardly focused?

 

[arildno]

Who thinks out & develops the equations in the first place?

Not the physicists, for the most part.

 

[desA]

Who, for instance, developed the understanding behind the conservation laws? Perhaps they weren't called Physicists, or Mathematicians in those days, but, their history would give some idea as to their general logic flow.

I've got Serway's Principles of Physics to hand, let me look a few persons of interest & we could bat that about a little. Some folks would have multiple leanings, I would expect.

 

[arildno]

"Who, for instance, developed the understanding behind the conservation laws?"

Hmm..the only person I'd say qualifies to have "developed understanding behind conservation laws" is the mathematician Emmy Noether.

 

[desA]

Let's start with two:

Galileo Galilei
Isaac Newton

 

[desA]

"Who, for instance, developed the understanding behind the conservation laws?"

Hmm..the only person I'd say qualifies to have "developed understanding behind conservation laws" is the mathematician Emmy Noether.

A very fair comment indeed.

Perhaps the question should have read, "Who first formulated the Conservation Laws".