Physics Definition: Matter, Energy, & Relativity

[bernhard.rothenstein]

I find the following definition of physics
The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two
Is the definition redundant in special relativity?
sine ira ey studio

 

[QuantumKing]

I would define physics more as, human fabricated concepts used to explain our sense perception with experiment. So i would say its the interaction between the functioning of the mind and ideas formulated to explain the phenomena we perceive as being real.

 

[pmb_phy]

I would define physics more as, human fabricated concepts used to explain our sense perception with experiment. So i would say its the interaction between the functioning of the mind and ideas formulated to explain the phenomena we perceive as being real.

Seems like a dreary definition to me. These so-called "human fabricated concpets" are mere descriptions to real phenomena which is observed in nature. As with all things in nature we give them names so as to create a universal language of terminology so that we're all on the same page.

Pete

 

[bernhard.rothenstein]

Seems like a dreary definition to me. These so-called "human fabricated concpets" are mere descriptions to real phenomena which is observed in nature. As with all things in nature we give them names so as to create a universal language of terminology so that we're all on the same page.

Pete

but what about the redundance in the wikipedia definition of physics?

 

[lightarrow]

I find the following definition of physics
The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two
Is the definition redundant in special relativity?
sine ira ey studio

I would say no, because light has no rest mass, for example, so there is an effective difference between mass and energy.

 

[MeJennifer]

I would say no, because light has no rest mass, for example, so there is an effective difference between mass and energy.

It depends
See for instance http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html"

 

[lightarrow]

It depends :
See for instance http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html"

Yes, I know, but, there, it also say:

However, modern usage defines mass as the invariant mass of an object mainly because the invariant mass is more useful when doing any kind of calculation... In the modern view mass is not equivalent to energy. It is just that part of the energy of a body which is not kinetic energy. Mass is independent of velocity whereas energy is not.