Can anyone defines physics?

  • #101
416
0
cscott said:
Generaly, is it the accepted view that reductionism fails?
I do not undesrand your question very well, can you explain?
 
  • #102
574
0
cscott said:
Generaly, is it the accepted view that reductionism fails?
Amoung condensed matter physicsts is it a common view. And CM physicists are the majority.
 
  • #103
782
1
Juan R. said:
I do not undesrand your question very well, can you explain?
I meant that if I were to poll practicing physicsts, what would be the majority view on reductionism.
 
  • #104
416
0
cscott said:
I meant that if I were to poll practicing physicsts, what would be the majority view on reductionism.
Aha!

Well, inha already explained the topic on condensed matter. Their favourite phrase is More is different launched by Nobel laureate P. W. Anderson. The phrase means that condensed matter is not trivially reduced to applied particle physics.

Physicists working in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, almost all of the comunity of complexity and chaos and other are antirreductionist.

Particle physics and string theorists (the same) are reducttionists, but is easily explained particle physicists or string theorists newer have solved complex problems. Moreover, that is usually said by people like Ed Witten, B. Greene, or S. Weinberg on chemistry and reductionism is incorrect. E.g. last article on the topic by Weinberg is completely wrong and just reflects a complete misunderstanding of Weinberg in chemistry and other stuff. Weinberg is a pure reductionist.

Gell-Mann was a pure reductionist when was particle physicist but when begin shis research in complex systems in the Santa Fe institute changed his mind and now admits that research in others disciplines is so fundamental like pure particle physics. Still Gell-Mann is wrong in some important details.

In other disciplines Reductionism does not work. It does not work in chemistry, for example Nobel laureate Jean Marie Lehn already explained why. In biology or medicine reductionism does not work according to D. C. Mikulecky.

Etc.
 
  • #105
782
1
Thanks for summing that up nicely, and sorry for derailing this thread a bit o:)
 
  • #106
Physics is a science on which every other science is dependant.
 
  • #107
Doc Al
Mentor
44,989
1,259
I think this thread has gone on long enough.
 

Related Threads on Can anyone defines physics?

Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
5K
Top