Disenchanted with Physics Other Sciences?

[darkchild]

Background information: I received my B.S. in Physics with an Astrophysics concentration last month. I was confused and unhappy with what I was learning during my university studies. I've come to realize that I pursued Physics with the expectation of learning how the world worked; what I actually learned about (beyond first year physics or so) were a bunch of metaphors for how the world works (models) and how to do all sorts of calculations with these metaphors. Sometimes, I sit and marvel at all the work I did, all the physics that is being done all over the world, and has been done all throughout time, juxtaposed with the fact that scientists still don't know the answer to "how" with regard to fundamental questions such as the operation of magnets. I understand that models are useful in some ways, but what is important to me is to know how things actually work, and if there is no answer, I'd rather accept that as a reality and move on or keep looking than churn out pages and pages of vector calculus based on someone dead guy's arbitrary construct (magnetic fields, for example). I originally thought it was just the way I was taught, so I bought a lot of quality physics texts and tried to learn on my own, only to find myself feeling like Alice in Wonderland again amidst the endless procession of references to non-existent objects such as infinite planes of charge. Also, (kind of moving into ranting territory/totally different topic here), what is up with taking a physics equation, reorganizing it mathematically (such as applying Green's theorem), and trying to interpret the result in physical terms? The physical world determines the math, not vice versa.

Now, I'm lost in terms of what my future holds. I'm still very curious about the physical world, and a few days ago I began to wonder if Earth Science or Planetary Science are more objective-reality-focused than Physics, and if I would find some satisfaction in studying them in graduate school. I know that some of the material will refer to the aspects of Physics that I dislike, but I could be fine with that as long as it is not the case most of the time. I would like some insight about these fields, given the information I've mentioned about my interests and perspective. I'm somewhat inhibited in my ability to research it myself right now, being in a foreign country where I can't read the language well enough to make good use of a library, but I can look up research papers, etc., online if anyone has that sort of suggestion.

This was not easy for me to express, so thanks for taking the time to read it and for any suggestions.

 

[symbolipoint]

Ask yourself this: What do you know how to do now that you did not know 3 or 4 years ago? Can you get a job with it? Could you continue education in some postbacalaureate way to improve your knowledge or skills?

 

[Klockan3]

Sometimes, I sit and marvel at all the work I did, all the physics that is being done all over the world, and has been done all throughout time, juxtaposed with the fact that scientists still don't know the answer to "how" with regard to fundamental questions such as the operation of magnets.

Physicists knows how magnets operate... You probably don't understand the maths well enough to really understand what it means in physics. Maths is a language and lots of it is tailored for describing phenomenas in physics so it is obvious that you will see a lot of maths in any physics education.

But as for your other concerns such as the field around an infinite plane, the thing is that at a close distance to any charged plane it is with a very good estimate infinite. It is the same thing with the gravitational pull on earth, we usually just approximate it to be constant while in fact it differs depending on how high above the surface you are. But it is a very good approximation so we allow ourselves to use it.

What you do in physics is learning about models which approximates reality and how to apply them to real problems. Each new exact solution gives you more tools to approximate with and thus allows you to do better approximations. Thus studying exact solution is worthwhile even though they might never appear in reality.

Magnets is a quite tough subject though and they won't be properly explained in beginner courses, but trust me they are fully understood. There are no currently known phenomenas which aren't explained by either the quantum bit or the general relativity bit of physics.

Can you give an example of other "fundamental questions not explained by physics"?

Edit: As for how magnets work, is it the deal with "magnetic fields can't do work but magnets can obviously lift things"? Because that isn't strange at all, magnetic fields can't do work no, but it can direct the flow of for example electrons. If electrons are moving I can change their direction of movement and thus for example making them lift my piece of metal. It is the movement of those electrons which does the work, the energy is taken from their kinetic energy, but they wouldn't actually do the work if they weren't directed by the magnetic field.

 

[verty]

Just butting in for a second... in what way were you "enchanted" with physics? Could it be your enchantment was not objective?

 

[Phyisab****]

Physicists knows how magnets operate... You probably don't understand the maths well enough to really understand what it means in physics. Maths is a language and lots of it is tailored for describing phenomenas in physics so it is obvious that you will see a lot of maths in any physics education.

But as for your other concerns such as the field around an infinite plane, the thing is that at a close distance to any charged plane it is with a very good estimate infinite. It is the same thing with the gravitational pull on earth, we usually just approximate it to be constant while in fact it differs depending on how high above the surface you are. But it is a very good approximation so we allow ourselves to use it.

What you do in physics is learning about models which approximates reality and how to apply them to real problems. Each new exact solution gives you more tools to approximate with and thus allows you to do better approximations. Thus studying exact solution is worthwhile even though they might never appear in reality.

Magnets is a quite tough subject though and they won't be properly explained in beginner courses, but trust me they are fully understood. There are no currently known phenomenas which aren't explained by either the quantum bit or the general relativity bit of physics.

Can you give an example of other "fundamental questions not explained by physics"?

Edit: As for how magnets work, is it the deal with "magnetic fields can't do work but magnets can obviously lift things"? Because that isn't strange at all, magnetic fields can't do work no, but it can direct the flow of for example electrons. If electrons are moving I can change their direction of movement and thus for example making them lift my piece of metal. It is the movement of those electrons which does the work, the energy is taken from their kinetic energy, but they wouldn't actually do the work if they weren't directed by the magnetic field.

I think he means in this sense: . Of course I would hope that any prospective physics student would realize physics does not intend to answer philisophical questions.

 

[darkchild]

Physicists knows how magnets operate... You probably don't understand the maths well enough to really understand what it means in physics.

If they did, I'm sure that the basics could be explained without math. Math is not an explanation and cannot replace one; it's just a representation of that which is explained. If you're referring to the information concerning ferromagnetism, diamagnetism, properties of electrons affecting magnetism, lining up in domains, etc., that isn't what I mean by knowing how magnets operate; if not, I would appreciate it if you or someone else reading this would suggest a keyword, theory name, etc. I could use to look it up myself.

What you do in physics is learning about models which approximates reality and how to apply them to real problems.

I understand the usefulness of models for the purposes of approximation; I understand quite well what physics is about now. The points I was making were that I dislike this method as a means of scientific inquiry, and that I didn't realize that this was what physics was about when I began working on my degree.

 

[darkchild]

Just butting in for a second... in what way were you "enchanted" with physics? Could it be your enchantment was not objective?

Enchantment is inherently subjective. I was "enchanted" in the sense that I had a lot of questions about the physical world that were very important to me, and I thought pursuing physics would answer them.

 

[darkchild]

I think he means in this sense: . Of course I would hope that any prospective physics student would realize physics does not intend to answer philisophical questions.

I'm not a "he" and no, I don't mean anything in any philosophical sense.

 

[Phyisab****]

I'm not a "he" and no, I don't mean anything in any philosophical sense.

Sorry. Can you then please explain what in god's name you do mean?

 

[darkchild]

Can you give an example of other "fundamental questions not explained by physics"?

It's not that physics does not offer an explanation, it's that I find some of the explanations nearly worthless because they are based on fanciful models that don't seem to have much to do with reality.

Edit: As for how magnets work, is it the deal with "magnetic fields can't do work but magnets can obviously lift things"?

No, the deal is that the concept of a magnetic field is something that is entirely made up. Having things explained to me in terms of magnetic fields is like having things explained to me in terms of unicorns. In fact, someone could come up with a theory of magnetism that said that invisible unicorns push or pull magnets towards other magnets and so forth, and, as long as it came with a consistent mathematical representation and the description of the pushing and pulling was borne out by experiment, it would be a completely legitimate physical theory - based on something just as random and imaginary as a magnetic field.

 

[Phyisab****]

It's not that physics does not offer an explanation, it's that I find some of the explanations nearly worthless because they are based on fanciful models that don't seem to have much to do with reality.

No, the deal is that the concept of a magnetic field is something that is entirely made up. Having things explained to me in terms of magnetic fields is like having things explained to me in terms of unicorns. In fact, someone could come up with a theory of magnetism that said that invisible unicorns push or pull magnets towards other magnets and so forth, and, as long as it came with a consistent mathematical representation and the description of the pushing and pulling was borne out by experiment, it would be a completely legitimate physical theory - based on something just as random and imaginary as a magnetic field.

The magnetic field is just a tool which allows you to calculate something real, the force on a moving charged particle or dipole. What's the problem? If unicorns allowed you to calculate the forced that would be fine too, but they don't.

 

[hadsed]

If they did, I'm sure that the basics could be explained without math. Math is not an explanation and cannot replace one; it's just a representation of that which is explained. If you're referring to the information concerning ferromagnetism, diamagnetism, properties of electrons affecting magnetism, lining up in domains, etc., that isn't what I mean by knowing how magnets operate; if not, I would appreciate it if you or someone else reading this would suggest a keyword, theory name, etc. I could use to look it up myself.

This is precisely the problem. You cannot expect to understand these theories fully without knowing the mathematics. It's a claim that many laymen readers of popular physics will have, but the fact is that the language nature is described in happens to be mathematics and if you don't know the mathematics you'll never fully understand what's going on.

 

[JDStupi]

Do yourself a favor, and read philosophy. Immediatley. If you don't think your asking philosophical quesitons, your wrong. All this shows is that you entertain an ideal of a completely objective "View from Nowhere" or "God's Eye view" of the universe and were dismayed when you found out that that is not what Physics was giving you. Now where did you get your objectivist philosophy from? If you think Mathematics is not an explanation, thn you must ask yourself what is involved in a scientific theory? Mathematics and an interpretation of the mathematical theory in terms of a physical ontology which may or may not be partly accurate. If Physics doesn't represent the type of knowledge you want, what does? What is knowledge that is "objective" and how would you know? And if you don't like the usage of Mathematics, I don't know what to say, consider how humans think and interact with their environment through the usage of tools, tools which can be internalized and abstracted and represented as language. Now consider Mathematics as a cognitive tool used for humans to understand the world, and consider its usefullnes. If "merely useful" isn't what you want, you want "objective" is there even such a thing? What does it mean for something to be true? How is truth expressed? what is it? ...You disagree that the mathematics is giving a fundamental ontology after interpreted physically, this may be true, but with regards to you magnetic field example, what do you make of simply throwing iron filings around a bar magnent and watching them align themselves with some"thing" that looks like a magnetic field? How do you divorce the experimental facts of a theory from the theoretical/mathematical framework it is made in?...can you understnad "Observation sentences" independantly of "theory sentances", do they have meaning, and how does theory direct and influence observation?

Oh yea, and psychologically, what makes you long for an absolute post you can frame your world-view around? ...And how would you be consistent if your new science made use of Physics as its ground...you would be in the same place. With experimentally established regularities and observables and a theoretical structure that was un observable with deductive consequences that lead to new observable statements. ...How do you structure and reason about your world in the absence of scientific theory?

 

[Feldoh]

What you actually want is philosophy of science rather than physics which is purely an empirical science.

 

[darkchild]

The magnetic field is just a tool which allows you to calculate something real, the force on a moving charged particle or dipole.

That's my point, it's just a tool, but throughout physics it is treated as something that has objective reality. A few posts above, you yourself started in on "how magnets work" and you began describing it in terms of a magnetic field, as if the latter were real. It's the same with physics professors and physics books; no one ever said what was or wasn't a model, and I had to figure it out myself as an undergraduate. Although it seems quite simple now, it was quite confusing then.

To my knowledge, there is no explanation of how magnets behave that doesn't involve magnetic fields; that is what I meant when I said that no one knows how magnets really worked. If we did, we wouldn't need to rely on such a construct for a simple explanation of the phenomenon of magnetism.

What's the problem? If unicorns allowed you to calculate the forced that would be fine too, but they don't.

The problem is that an explanation in terms of things that don't exist is not an explanation in my eyes (except perhaps as a metaphor). It's the same problem I would have if I asked about how a car worked and, instead of being answered in terms of gasoline and engine cylinders and such, was told that fairies pulled it along. Being able to calculate things is great, but it's more important to me to know what is really going on. I would not have a problem if it was made clear that certain things are just models; but that is often not what happens. People ask how things work, and scientists (or whoever) launch into metaphors. It's misleading and confusing.

 

[JDStupi]

I don't understand what "real" means to you? We are not minds floating around mirroring a physical world, we exist in a unique socio-environmental milieu and if you hope to find any "explanation" independant of that fact, I don't know what to say. I just think that if you wish to say that a science that has propelled our civilization forward does not explain things I think you should ask yourself what it means for something to be an "explanation" and if anything in your life meets that qualification. What would constitute an explanation of magnetism to you? Do you believe in the existence of atoms? You seem like your philsophically confused, your a positivist who is still searching for a sense-independant ultimate knowledge.

 

[darkchild]

We are not minds floating around mirroring a physical world, we exist in a unique socio-environmental milieu and if you hope to find any "explanation" independant of that fact, I don't know what to say.

What in the world are you talking about? I haven't said anything about explanations of the world being independent of sociocultural milieus.

I just think that if you wish to say that a science that has propelled our civilization forward does not explain things I think you should ask yourself what it means for something to be an "explanation" and if anything in your life meets that qualification.

Why? What does the fact that "science has propelled our civilization forward" have to do with whether or not I should question my dissatisfaction?

What would constitute an explanation of magnetism to you?

Something that does not pass figments of the imagination off as physical phenomena.

Do you believe in the existence of atoms? You seem like your philsophically confused, your a positivist who is still searching for a sense-independant ultimate knowledge.

Of course I don't "believe" in the existence of atoms. This question makes no sense; science is not a matter of belief, or it shouldn't be, at least. Atoms are a model, just like magnetic fields, although, from what I understand, the details of their nature have far more basis in physical reality, for example, the experiments of Rutherford.

 

[darkchild]

This is precisely the problem. You cannot expect to understand these theories fully without knowing the mathematics. It's a claim that many laymen readers of popular physics will have, but the fact is that the language nature is described in happens to be mathematics and if you don't know the mathematics you'll never fully understand what's going on.

I have not said that full understanding was possible without an understanding of the math involved; I specifically mentioned the "basics."

 

[Vanadium 50]

Two comments:

You seem to be hung up on what is "real". You can look at many threads here where people get tangled up in the same question. That's a question of philosophy, so it's not surprising that physics doesn't address it. I maintain that the magnetic field is no more and no less real than "wind" (which, after all, is a velocity field). They are both invisible, they both interact with some things and not others, they both obey certain continuity equations, they both carry energy and momentum.

Additionally, you seem to be unhappy with the mathematical nature of physics. I suspect then that you will be at least as disenchanted with other sciences, at least the hard sciences. "What goes up must come down" is not enough for science - we want to know where and when it comes down.

 

[verty]

Karl Popper was a well-known critic of logical positivism, who published the book Logik der Forschung in 1934 (translated by himself as The Logic of Scientific Discovery, published 1959). In it he argued that the positivists' criterion of verifiability was too strong a criterion for science, and should be replaced by a criterion of falsifiability. Popper thought that falsifiability was a better criterion because it did not invite the philosophical problems inherent in verifying an induction, and it allowed statements from the physical sciences which seemed scientific but which did not meet the verification criterion.

Reading what he has to say may justify why concepts like magnetic fields are useful, or even necessary.

 

[Klockan3]

To my knowledge, there is no explanation of how magnets behave that doesn't involve magnetic fields

You can explain everything without ever touching the concept of magnetic fields, it is just that magnetic fields makes it easier to conceptualize. All you need is to know how the particles effects each other and to do that you don't need any field, the field is just a mathematical aid and I assumed that you knew that.

Edit: One thing that would be good for this discussion though would be something that you would consider to be an adequate explanation, if you just say what you don't want this will never lead anywhere.

Edit edit: Ok, from reading your post again it seems like you really did not understand much of the maths/physics you were taught. The deal with magnetic fields is that it doesn't change anything to view the force between particles as if it were a field associated with said particles. Now from the expression of the force we can see that such a field would have certain qualities, etc. From that point on the rest is just about calculations that would be true even if we never invented the magnetic field but everything would be much harder to explain and do. You obviously got lost somewhere on the track though...

 

[Dougggggg]

What your ultimately looking for (as far as how/why everything works) is something many many physicists are looking for. A theory on how everything works. There is no answer that we know of at this point to those questions.

To say that your question isn't at least somewhat philosophical is a very poor understanding of philosophy. It truly is a philosophical question. Questions like beginning with "how" and "why" are quite commonly philosophical questions.

Whatever you do decide to do though, I wish you the best of luck, I am sorry your undergraduate degree wasn't what you were hoping for.

 

[Klockan3]

Also, (kind of moving into ranting territory/totally different topic here), what is up with taking a physics equation, reorganizing it mathematically (such as applying Green's theorem), and trying to interpret the result in physical terms? The physical world determines the math, not vice versa.

Also this quote is kinda ridiculous! The deal with maths is that if that if the first equation is true then by necessity the second equation will also be true! If the second equation wasn't true then the first equation can't be true either. So if you accept the first equation then you must accept the second. If you are mistrusting of the second equation then in reality you are not trusting the first equation.

The deal with for example Green's theorem is that what you got on both sides of the equality sign means exactly the same thing, so if you "transform" a physics equation by using that you still got the same equation afterwards as you started with, it just looks different but it is the same thing.

 

[twofish-quant]

It's not that physics does not offer an explanation, it's that I find some of the explanations nearly worthless because they are based on fanciful models that don't seem to have much to do with reality.

You want to know how much force thing X has when moved next to thing Y. You run the numbers, and you get 2.1 Newtons. You do the experiment, and you get 2.3+0.2 Newtons.

That's reality, and that's physics. You might be annoyed because the model is incredibly complicated and includes lots of fudge factors and random items in it. But reality is messy. Get used to that.

I think what it boils down to is that the universe doesn't work in the way that you think it should work. Again, you need to get used to that (and try to understand who taught you that the universe *should* be simple and elegant. I think is was Plato.)

Reality is what you observe.

No, the deal is that the concept of a magnetic field is something that is entirely made up. Having things explained to me in terms of magnetic fields is like having things explained to me in terms of unicorns. In fact, someone could come up with a theory of magnetism that said that invisible unicorns push or pull magnets towards other magnets and so forth, and, as long as it came with a consistent mathematical representation and the description of the pushing and pulling was borne out by experiment, it would be a completely legitimate physical theory - based on something just as random and imaginary as a magnetic field.

Sure. The only problem is that you have to explain why the unicorns manage to pull 2.3 Newtons rather than 0.2 Newtons or 5000 Newtons. If you can give me that explanation, then I don't have a problem with explanations based on unicorns.

Once you have a consistent theory of unicorns, you can build machines based on those unicorns. You also have some other mysteries like why unicorns pull in this way rather than that, but if you keep asking questions, you'll come up with the answer "I don't know." People often get into physics because they are uncomfortable with the answer "I don't know" but the problem is that the more you know, the more questions come up and then the more the answer "I don't know" comes up.

Personally, I think that's cool which is why I'm in the game.

 

[twofish-quant]

If they did, I'm sure that the basics could be explained without math.

Why do you think that.

Math is not an explanation and cannot replace one; it's just a representation of that which is explained.

Math is a language. Do you think that you could explain a physical theory without words or pictures? Words and pictures aren't explanations, but explanations are impossible without them.

And I don't really think it's possible to easily explain magnets without math. I know that this explanation is a good one because it says that when I put object X next to object Y, I get 2.1 Newtons of force and that's more or less what I measure when I actually put object X next to object Y. Without the language of math, how am I supposed to say 2.1 Newtons of force?

If you're referring to the information concerning ferromagnetism, diamagnetism, properties of electrons affecting magnetism, lining up in domains, etc., that isn't what I mean by knowing how magnets operate

I don't think what you mean exists or can exist in science. I think you are more likely to find what you are looking for in Buddhism. (I mean this seriously, because I'm a Buddhist. When I talk to my Buddhist priest, he would say that caring about whether two objects exert 2.1 Newtons of force against each other is an illusionary truth that doesn't matter, and that I shouldn't get too frustrated about worrying why that is.)

Other sciences are even *worse* at trying to get what you think is reality than physics. Physics deals with simple things. You put two magnets next to each other, and the same thing happens. You put two people next to each other or two cells next to each other, and there are all sorts of complicated interactions that you can't control.

I understand the usefulness of models for the purposes of approximation; I understand quite well what physics is about now. The points I was making were that I dislike this method as a means of scientific inquiry, and that I didn't realize that this was what physics was about when I began working on my degree.

So you've learned something.

The thing that you have to realize that it's going to get worse if you go to graduate school. I really don't think that you are going to find what you are looking for in science, and I think you might consider becoming a Buddhist monk or Catholic priest, because they have other methods at getting toward deep truth.

 

[jeebs]

call me crazy but if you have these issues with why you don't like physics, and then every other aspect of science can be considered a branch of physics, then how is switching to anything else going to make a difference?

 

[twofish-quant]

Why? What does the fact that "science has propelled our civilization forward" have to do with whether or not I should question my dissatisfaction?

Because one of the reason I spend more time thinking about physics than I do about Buddhism is because once I have a model of how magnets work, I can build machines using magnets and make money from them. Once I have machines that can make money, then there are lots of powerful people that are interested keeping me well fed and happy so that I can build more machines for them.

Something that does not pass figments of the imagination off as physical phenomena.

Define physical. (Seriously)

 

[twofish-quant]

Enchantment is inherently subjective. I was "enchanted" in the sense that I had a lot of questions about the physical world that were very important to me, and I thought pursuing physics would answer them.

And they didn't. For me, this was *cool*. If we understood everything they how boring would the world be? For me it was thrilling when you ask some very basic questions, and the answer was "We don't really know." It was more thrilling when I found out that the answer was "We don't really know, but you can spend the rest of your life trying to figure it out."

I've got a few decades left in my life, and I've given up trying to understand everything about the world. Can't be done. However, if after spending seventy or eighty years on this planet, and I leave with the knowledge that I've figured out *anything* I think that's worthwhile.

 

[twofish-quant]

I have not said that full understanding was possible without an understanding of the math involved; I specifically mentioned the "basics."

And the basics are pretty useless in building the machines that get the people with power to spend money on this.

Metal bends. Totally useless if you are trying to build a skyscraper. You need to know how much the metal bends and that means that you have the numbers.

 

[Leveret]

Do you accept cells as existing, darkchild?

If so, why? You certainly can't see them with the naked eye. If you use a good enough microscope, though, they're pretty evident, so perhaps that's good enough--we can accept things we can see with machines. So, what about DNA? To my knowledge, it's not visible under any optical microscope, but if you look at it via x-ray diffraction, you can discern its structure. Again, we can look through a machine and see evidence of its existence, which was good enough for us before. What about atoms, then? By performing repeated measurements with lasers, we can literally draw pictures of electron clouds, even individual atomic orbitals. Do you accept that these exist?

One could argue that none of the examples I've used is definitive. Sure, an electron cloud in the shape of a p-orbital could bring about the experimental results described in the latter example, but so could a tribe of tiny chipmunks figure-skating on the luminiferous aether. We can't really say for sure which theory is correct. But that's how the scientific method is. To be honest, we don't really know much of anything for sure. If we did, there would be no need to conduct further research, and few of us would be here. All we can really do is take whichever theory fits the data the best, and assume it is correct--for now. If, tomorrow, someone comes up with a new theory that explains everything even better, we can scrap our current explanation and accept that as truth. I wouldn't imagine many people are arrogant enough to think they can figure out everything in the natural world; what we can do, however, is try to improve our current theories, and, little by little, inch our way closer to the truth. Otherwise, how could we ever get anywhere?

 

[lawsofform]

It seems as if you are taking offense at the suggestion that you ought to study philosophy. It isn't that people are dismissing you as stupid or frivolous, but in fact what you want to know is outside the realm of any science.

The fact is, only atoms and their ilk experience reality directly. Your brain does not. Your brain filters everything through metaphors (I'd suggest reading some George Lakoff). We are fortunate that the things we study in physics correspond nicely to numbers, so we can model them using mathematics. Other sciences are not so lucky, so models get more idealized and inexact, because it's hard to pull out the nuts and bolts without some formal way of doing so.

And similarly, words and non-quantitative ideas do not correspond in any formal way to physics, so that is why it's impossible to really understand these things without math. What words correspond to is things related to human experience. As stated above, humans do not exerience physics in any direct way.

Finally, you should maybe do some rigorous introspection on what exactly you are looking for. For example, I can tell you that everything you see is vibrating energy, and in a certain imprecise way I am right. But what does that matter? Is this fact inherently edifying? What can you do with it? Perhaps that's not good enough, and you want to know what energy actually is. What sort of answer would satisfy you? Is there anything that you could learn about the nature of reality that would actually impact your life?

I'm not trying to trivalize your curiosity, because every scientist is driven by the act of asking "why?" But just because it's possible to ask a question doesn't mean an answer exists.

 

[Shackleford]

Just remember physics started out as "natural philosophy."

 

[Sankaku]

Only speaking for myself, I have found that much of science has historically been the study of 'things' (atoms, genes, cells, etc.) and then later turned into the study of the relationships between those things (math) and the structures that they formed (more math). The closer we look at the 'things' around us, the more it seems that they are all actually more 'process-like' and less 'thing-like' than we thought.

What does this mean? It is a very good question. If delving into the philosophy of science is unsatisfying, then your idea of a more hands-on physical science may be the right idea. I had to look pretty hard to find the parts of 'philosophy' that (to me) were more than just arguing about words, but it is out there. However, the philosophy of science is not really an attractive career goal.

Only you will be able to tell if a field will interest you. It is probably a good sign that you are unsatisfied - that is where good science comes from.

 

[twofish-quant]

Also, (kind of moving into ranting territory/totally different topic here), what is up with taking a physics equation, reorganizing it mathematically (such as applying Green's theorem), and trying to interpret the result in physical terms? The physical world determines the math, not vice versa.

But if there is a correspondence between the math and the physical world, you can figure out stuff about the physical world by looking at the math.

Also, things get interesting if you go "deep". For example, it's a fact that electromagnetism is a result of U(1) gauge invariance (google and get the wikipedia page). If you assert that space has a particular symmetry, then all of electromagnetism pops out.

 

[Simfish]

I've often felt disenchanted with physics throughout my physics education. Physics courses often feel more "math"-y than "science"-y, and you don't even need to know anything about the scientific method in order to get the physics degree. Sometimes, reading the modern physics from a historical perspective can re-ignite the scientific excitement that you had for physics.

A physics degree + research in astrophysics or atmospheric sciences can also rhelp emind you of the "science"-yness of physics.

 

[twofish-quant]

I've often felt disenchanted with physics throughout my physics education. Physics courses often feel more "math"-y than "science"-y, and you don't even need to know anything about the scientific method in order to get the physics degree.

Part of it is that when people write about the "scientific method" they are observing what scientists do. It turns out that sometimes scientists do something different than what the textbooks say they do. One thing that is really interesting and a little scary is to look at how people describe science in different ways in different time periods.

The idea that "science works through falsification" was created in 1928. The notion of science as paradigms was an idea that started in the 1960's. One thing that's useful about having a Ph.D., is that I can make statements like "scientists really don't use the scientific method" and be taken someone seriously.

Sometimes, reading the modern physics from a historical perspective can re-ignite the scientific excitement that you had for physics.

Yes, on the other hand you then get into debates over how accurate the history is. Something that that happens after you've done physics for a few years is that you "live history." If you just study anything for five years, then you'll find out stuff that people didn't know five years ago.

 

[Gordianus]

But if there is a correspondence between the math and the physical world, you can figure out stuff about the physical world by looking at the math.

Also, things get interesting if you go "deep". For example, it's a fact that electromagnetism is a result of U(1) gauge invariance (google and get the wikipedia page). If you assert that space has a particular symmetry, then all of electromagnetism pops out.

However true this statament is, I don't think this "ultra-abstract" methods gets us (me) any closer to understanding physics.
When I was young, I was elated with Landau's mechanics book. Once you accepted a least action principle was at work, everything went out smoothly. Today, many years later, I think we first had Galileo, then Newton and Hamilton came at the end of a very long list of famous names. Similarly, I'd rather picture Coulomb rubbing glass, Oersted moving the wire close to the compass, Maxwell and, as a grand finale, we conclude everything is a consequence of a given simmetry. The last assertion is extremely powerful and abstract but, if I started with it, I certainly doubt I'd have any "feeling" about electromagnetics.
Math is a most powerful tool, but relying solely on it deprives us from "trudging" the path that let's us "grab" the idea (This is my humble point of view after teaching physics many years)

 

[darkchild]

Reading what he has to say may justify why concepts like magnetic fields are useful, or even necessary.

If that is directed at me, I've already stated that I already understand why magnetic fields are useful...as for being necessary, it depends on what one claims they are necessary for.

 

[darkchild]

And the basics are pretty useless in building the machines that get the people with power to spend money on this.

Useless to whom? I have specifically stated several times in this thread that I like to understand how things work. It is pointless for you to respond to me and tell me that knowledge that I find valuable is useless to some other people, or for some purpose that is not my own.

 

[darkchild]

Two comments:

You seem to be hung up on what is "real". You can look at many threads here where people get tangled up in the same question. That's a question of philosophy, so it's not surprising that physics doesn't address it. I maintain that the magnetic field is no more and no less real than "wind" (which, after all, is a velocity field). They are both invisible, they both interact with some things and not others, they both obey certain continuity equations, they both carry energy and momentum.

I have not used the right word; I do not mean to question whether physics concepts are "real" or not in a philosophical sense, I mean to question whether or not (and to what extent) they are based on observation.

"Wind" is just a name given to an observed phenomenon; it is magnetism, the phenomenon of the behavior of magnets, that is it's analogue. To me, they are both "real" in the sense that they are observed. Magnetic fields, on the other hand, have little to do with observation. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the observation of magnetism that would necessarily suggest magnetic fields as the culprit. As I've said up-thread, it could just as well be invisible unicorns pushing and pulling magnets together as a magnetic field. It is not "real" in the sense that it is a totally arbitrary construction.

Additionally, you seem to be unhappy with the mathematical nature of physics.

You are mistaken; I enjoy math. In this thread, I have expressed dissatisfaction with the math I did as an undergraduate because of the models that I was manipulating with the math. I also expressed the idea that understanding the basic physical principles of how something works does not require math. Neither implies that I dislike math in general.

 

[darkchild]

What you actually want is philosophy of science rather than physics which is purely an empirical science.

The philosophy of science is not going to explain how magnets attract and repulse one another.

 

[darkchild]

You can explain everything without ever touching the concept of magnetic fields,

Can you explain to me how magnets attract and repulse one another, or how they attract or repulse live wires, without invoking the concept of a magnetic field? I would love to hear it.

Edit: One thing that would be good for this discussion though would be something that you would consider to be an adequate explanation, if you just say what you don't want this will never lead anywhere.

I don't see how it's possible for me to answer that question. How can anyone say what is an acceptable explanation of something they don't fully understand? How can anyone suggest an effective way to explain something when they don't know what will be explained?

The deal with magnetic fields is that it doesn't change anything to view the force between particles as if it were a field associated with said particles.

It depends on what you're talking about changing. Obviously, the use of the concept doesn't change whatever phenomenon is being described; however, the way I conceptualize things matters to me, so adopting one arbitrary concept versus another does change something for me.

Now from the expression of the force we can see that such a field would have certain qualities, etc. From that point on the rest is just about calculations that would be true even if we never invented the magnetic field but everything would be much harder to explain and do.

I understand all of that. I don't see what it has to do with the point I'm making. The point that keeps being made over and over again in the replies is that magnetic fields are useful...ok, I get it, I know this already. They are generally useful in physics. They are not useful for one particular purpose of mine, and that is not affected by how useful they are in physics.

 

[darkchild]

The deal with maths is that if that if the first equation is true then by necessity the second equation will also be true!

I didn't say anything about the resulting equation no longer being true. Just because it's mathematically true doesn't mean it has a particular physical interpretation, or any at all for that matter.

 

[darkchild]

That's reality, and that's physics. You might be annoyed because the model is incredibly complicated and includes lots of fudge factors and random items in it. But reality is messy. Get used to that.

You need to read more carefully. I don't appreciate your assumptions concerning what annoys me, not to mention what appears to be condescension, especially since you don't even seem to understand what I'm talking about.

Reality is what you observe.

I agree.

If you can give me that explanation, then I don't have a problem with explanations based on unicorns.

This thread isn't about you. It's about me.

 

[darkchild]

Why do you think that.

I think that way because all sorts of physics concepts can be explained without math.

Math is a language. Do you think that you could explain a physical theory without words or pictures? Words and pictures aren't explanations, but explanations are impossible without them.

Considering the fact that words are the primary means of communication among humans, especially for complex subjects, while we can live, communicate, etc. just fine with little or no math, there is really no comparison between the two. Most of the posters in this thread have done all sorts of explaining with no math whatsoever, but it would have been impossible without words. Whether or not an explanation is impossible without math depends upon the nature of the explanation.

And I don't really think it's possible to easily explain magnets without math. I know that this explanation is a good one because it says that when I put object X next to object Y, I get 2.1 Newtons of force and that's more or less what I measure when I actually put object X next to object Y. Without the language of math, how am I supposed to say 2.1 Newtons of force?

It depends on what one wants to explain. If you are asking about amounts of things, as in your example, of course you need math. If one simply wants to know what happens when a magnet is in the vicinity of a live wire, it's not necessary.

Other sciences are even *worse* at trying to get what you think is reality than physics. Physics deals with simple things. You put two magnets next to each other, and the same thing happens. You put two people next to each other or two cells next to each other, and there are all sorts of complicated interactions that you can't control.

You have misunderstood. It's not complexity that I am complaining about.

 

[darkchild]

call me crazy but if you have these issues with why you don't like physics, and then every other aspect of science can be considered a branch of physics, then how is switching to anything else going to make a difference?

I think that whether or not "every other aspect of science can be considered a branch of physics" is debatable.

 

[Ryker]

It depends on what one wants to explain. If you are asking about amounts of things, as in your example, of course you need math. If one simply wants to know what happens when a magnet is in the vicinity of a live wire, it's not necessary.

Why? It seems to me you just decided that doesn't need to be backed up by maths, and are now just clinging to that belief without allowing evidence to the contrary. Words cannot express everything, so how can you just decide this is one thing they can? Both words and maths are human constructs, so why would you say one is superior to the other when they are just different? It seems to me you're trying to get across the ocean by car, but even though you see you can't, you still don't acknowledge the existence of planes and ships as real and valid means of doing just that.

And I'm not talking specifically about magnets and wires here, because I'm not far enough in my Physics education to comment on that specific case. But this is what I gathered from your approach to things.

 

[darkchild]

Why? It seems to me you just decided that doesn't need to be backed up by maths

Backing something up is not the same thing as giving a simple description of how something works. Ever hear of conceptual physics courses? How can they possibly teach anything if math is required to explain every little detail of physics?

Most of the things in this post that you have ascribed to me are things that I have neither stated nor implied (such as the idea that words are superior to math). You're making false assumptions about what I think, and I can't and won't answer about something I haven't said.

 

[Ryker]

Backing something up is not the same thing as giving a simple description of how something works. Ever hear of conceptual physics courses? How can they possibly teach anything if math is required to explain every little detail of physics?

I never said math is required for everything, I said it may be required for some things that cannot be fully explained by just words. You, on the other hand, are saying that everything should be explained by words and that is what I'm disputing. Also, I don't see why you'd bring up conceptual physics courses, because it seems that if you're disenchanted with how Physics is being taught, they obviously aren't doing what you think they should be (that is, explaining things conceptually without the need for math). And if you don't think words are superior to math in all aspects, why do you then not accept explanation with the use of the latter, but demand the use of the former?

 

[Feldoh]

The philosophy of science is not going to explain how magnets attract and repulse one another.

Neither will physics if you're looking for the end-all singular answer. All the physical sciences are grounded in observation.

How else would you describe the world? All you will even know in physics is due to observations and that is all you will ever know from it. If you want higher truths than observation then yes, you better look to some other sort of philosophical description of the world. That's all physics really is is the logic involved with observation.

EDIT: This guy's just arguing for the sake of arguing. People keep making the same points and this joker won't accept any of them. I'm calling troll.