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

[selfAdjoint]

Very interesting about Newton's not using 'momentum'

Let me add just a little bit more.

Among the bitter controversies over the new knowledge that divided the British from the Continental European mathematicial and physicists, was one about how to model mechanics. The British, following Newton, used forces, but the Continentals used momentum and "vis viva", a pretty close concept to kinetic energy. This controversy continued until the nineteenth century, when the Continentals won the day everywhere but in anglophone engineering departments.

I believe there is a discussion of all this in Max Jammer's Concepts of Force, which I recommend.

 

[arildno]

Actually, it is desA you quoted there.

Newton did, however have the corresponding concept to momentum called "quantity of motion", which incidentally, is the word that Scandinavians still use for linear momentum.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

the philosophical approach that argues that everything can be broken down to physical theory is physicalism.

i must say that this approach has some appeal to me, but I am biased, as was rutheford.

 

[arildno]

It is not Rutherford's physicalism as such that there is something wrong with, it is his arrogant and unjustified dismissal of other disciplines dealing with phenomena that are too complex to deal with in the manner of maths&physics.

 

[matt grime]

Right.

1. DesA, I"m worried that you think current mathematical research trends are based upon your understanding of the physical sciences from several centuries ago.2. Gettting back to the topic at hand, arildno, Rutherford's opinoin is purely based upon those things that were science at the time, and he terms them 'stamp-collecting', not 'uncomplex' or any other term. Arguably modern chemistry and biology bear little relation to their study at the start of the 20th Century. If you're going to accuse him of arrogance then at least acknowledge that.

 

[matt grime]

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

what equations? Who thinks mathematics is the study of equations...?

Is current Mathematics research internally, or outwardly focused?

As a 'current mathematical researcher' I think I'm in a better position to judge than you are whether or not we just 'work things out for the physicists to use'. We don't. Some mathematics is motivated by the 'real world', some real world scientists are now using mathematics developed without reference to the real world.

 

[arildno]

Well, at Rutherford's time, Darwin's principle of natural selection was very well known, and it is really all too dismissive of Rutherford to label Darwin's work as "stamp collecting".

 

[matt grime]

Let's start with two:

Galileo Galilei
Isaac Newton

Yes, let's start with people who have nothing to do with the modern trends in mathematical research... You noticed the bit where I said the ideas you had about research hadn't been true since the early part of the 20th Century? So why invoke two people who weren't even alive in the 19th Century? (Newon dead before 1750, Galileo before 1650).

 

[arildno]

As for the atomic theory of matter, this was developed by chemists, and it worked excellently.

Physicists were not too eager to go along with this theory at first, not because they didn't believe in it, but that they found the theoretical framework unsatisfactory built out, in particular that one should not rule out other possibilities for the constitution of matter.
As the physicists sharpened their tools in order to do so, they could verify in their own manner what chemists had hypothesized before.


Rutherford's statement arrogantly dismisses the conceptual work done by leading chemists prior to his own time.

 

[neutrino]

Well, at Rutherford's time, Darwin's principle of natural selection was very well known, and it is really all too dismissive of Rutherford to label Darwin's work as "stamp collecting".

Yes, but not everyone accepted it. I'm not saying that Rutherford didn't, but it may not have been considered as "truth" by a majority. We still have people, althogh insane, dismissing it as being "just a theory." Moreover, that's just one...you still had chemistry people labelling elements and botanists labelling plants and so on.

 

[arildno]

Furthermore, it was not physicists that came up with the idea that infections did not occur due to miasmas but by living organisms, it was guys like Koch and Pasteur who developed these ideas into such a form that it could be tested out empirically.

This vast advancement in biology&medicine is not dismissable as stamp-collecting, either.

 

[SF]

Anatomy is still basically physics, but at a different level.

What physics can't even touch in this field is predicting models for the mechanism of "life". You simply can't take a bunch of formulas put them together in a computer and spit out a zebra.
Heck, it can't even analyse and explain the similarities between a simple bacteria colony and the psychology of a human comunity.

 

[6000yr-earth]

There are, in my judgement of the issue two ways to look at this.

The first is a purely secular view of knowledge. Given the presupposition that we (humanity) are all finite then logically all sciences which are based around human behavior (psychology, economics, social sciences etc.) are all also finite and therefore irrelevant in the long run. Making the potentially eternal laws which can be learned from the natural sciences superior. So in this respect we have narrowed down the conflict by determining that natural sciences > social sciences. Next would be a comparison of the natural sciences biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Again coming from a secular viewpoint biological organisms will eventually die out therefore making biology a finite science. However, logically from this viewpoint, gravity, force, etc. are all permenent concepts. Therefore, physics>biology. I'll leave chemistry, geology etc. to be debated in comparison to physics but in this opinion physics does seem to be eternal... at least in comparison to other fields.

However, If you have a non-secular philosophy, this means you believe that living things have an eternal aspect. In which case those sciences which deal with how we interact with other people will have a symbiotic relationship with the natural sciences. The non-secularists need to pursue the study of the natural sciences and philosophy in order to justify their viewpoint, and the social sciences in order to efficiently put their viewpoints to work.

BTW FIRST POST! hello everyone!

 

[loseyourname]

"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.

Okay, I know I'm coming to this a little late, but since nobody else seemed to mention it, this comment needs to be taken in context. Chemistry at the time was still heavily invested in the discovery and classification of elements; biology in the discovery and classification of species. The theoretical aspects of these sciences have developed heavily since Rutherford's time; back then, a lot of the work done was "stamp collecting." His comment has nothing to do with the current state of sciences other than physics.

Furthermore, the theoretical breakthroughs of biology at least have not been reducible to physics. It is neither possible to predict nor understand what mutations will take place at the molecular level, and which will take hold and why, using physics. Phenotypic expression and community ecology need to be taken into account to create any form of coherent theory on the matter.

 

[arildno]

Okay, I know I'm coming to this a little late, but since nobody else seemed to mention it, this comment needs to be taken in context. Chemistry at the time was still heavily invested in the discovery and classification of elements; biology in the discovery and classification of species. The theoretical aspects of these sciences have developed heavily since Rutherford's time; back then, a lot of the work done was "stamp collecting." His comment has nothing to do with the current state of sciences other than physics.

Furthermore, the theoretical breakthroughs of biology at least have not been reducible to physics. It is neither possible to predict nor understand what mutations will take place at the molecular level, and which will take hold and why, using physics. Phenotypic expression and community ecology need to be taken into account to create any form of coherent theory on the matter.

Darwin and Mendel were PRIOR to Rutherford.
So were guys like Koch and Pasteur, who found out that it was living organisms that caused diseases, not "bad air", miasmas, which was what most others, including physicists, believed at the time.
So were the chemists who developed the highly successful atomic theory.

So, basically, Rutherford was WRONG, also in his own time, as I've said before.

 

[Demystifier]

One of the most fundamental branches of physics - elementary particle physics (known also as the Standard Model in its current form) - is also a kind of stamp collecting, isn't it?

 

[Crosson]

A Rutherfordian take on mathematics:

"All mathematics is either set theory, or tautologies".:yuck:

 

[baywax]

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..

As far as I know mind and brain are the same thing, according to leading Neuroscientists;

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

conscious experience and self awareness are also the same, according to the discipline (and who oughta know!?)

http://consc.net/papers/puzzle.html

In fact the two have been melded into one idea which is

conscious awareness

There's nothing mysterious, metaphysical or spooky about the mind, brain, awareness or consciousness. Its all physical

Thanks to physics (NB: topic!) for helping to clarify that physcial fact about the physiology of the brain/mind/conscious awareness. Who else would have come up with an fMRI machine with accompanying accutrimonts.

Physics is like a pencil. Its how you use it that determines the outcome. This is true for all the arts and sciences. That's how I see it anyway.

But, its been said that we're "not to believe everything we think"!:tongue2:

 

[Demystifier]

A Rutherfordian take on mathematics:

"All mathematics is either set theory, or tautologies".:yuck:

All (serious) statements are either tautologies or conjectures.

And an old one:
There are 10 kind of people: Those that understand binary and those that do not.

 

[baywax]

It is neither possible to predict nor understand what mutations will take place at the molecular level, and which will take hold and why, using physics. Phenotypic expression and community ecology need to be taken into account to create any form of coherent theory on the matter.

Hasn't physics come up with a formula for community ecology, phenotypic expression and survivability predictions for mutations?

These are physical phenomena and so they are reducible to physics formuli.

Or are Gödel’s incompleteness theorems true? Does emergence prevent predictability? Is irreducible complexity a reality or are are physicists lazy?

The following link shows that some physicists are busy trying to extract formuli out of biological function and other stuff.Statistical Physics, Biological Physics and Physics of Quantum Systems

http://ion.elte.hu/kredit/Intezet/PhDeloadasokangolSTAT-uj.html

 

[sd01g]

As far as I know mind and brain are the same thing, according to leading Neuroscientists;

:

Is a light bulb that is turned on (emitting light) the same thing as a light bulb that is turned off (not emitting light)? The energy that powers the light bulb is from an outside source and is really not part of the light bulb. The energy that powers the brain is from an outside source and not really part of the brain. The mind is really not part of brain but part of the electrochemical activity that is powered by energy from an outside source (from food). Its simple. No electrochemical activity, no mind; no outside energy, no electrochemical activity. The question is "what in the 'outside energy' allows the the brain to produce the mind?

 

[SF]

What is there so special in the outside energy other than the ability to do work

 

[sd01g]

What is there so special in the outside energy other than the ability to do work

Stop the blood flow to the brain (interfere with the energy flow) for a short time and there is no consciousness. A short time more and there is no more mind. Seems like there is MORE than the ability to do work in the electrochemical activity in the brain. It seems like the really cool stuff like 'how does the graviton work?' and 'how does energy produce consciousness in the brain?', are pretty much unkowns.

 

[baywax]

Is a light bulb that is turned on (emitting light) the same thing as a light bulb that is turned off (not emitting light)? The energy that powers the light bulb is from an outside source and is really not part of the light bulb. The energy that powers the brain is from an outside source and not really part of the brain. The mind is really not part of brain but part of the electrochemical activity that is powered by energy from an outside source (from food). Its simple. No electrochemical activity, no mind; no outside energy, no electrochemical activity. The question is "what in the 'outside energy' allows the the brain to produce the mind?

Equating the brain with the mind means there is no mind without the brain just as there is no visual stimulus without eyes or a visual cortex (the part of the cerebral cortex that receives and processes sensory nerve impulses from the eyes.).

The brain and the nervous system are structured, physiologically, in such a way that they produce the "electrochemical activity" you're talking about. The activities of these structures sometimes produce a result we've called "mind" or "brain activity".

food has to become an "internal source of energy" before it can help "power electrochemical activity". Actually food becomes that electrochemical soup of activity. You'd know more about this if you studied the mammalian cellular metabolic chart.

The question is "what in the 'outside energy' allows the the brain to produce the mind?

The answer could be as simple as "you are what you eat".

Food maintains the brain and its activities. This isn't a new thing. All organs are supported by food.

The word "mind" is an overblown human dramatization of brain activity.
This doesn't diminish the amazing potentials the human brain can realize.

We call a bile duct a "bile duct" because its a duct that carries bile. You could always lobby to change the name of the brain to "the mind duct" or "the vessel of electrochemical activity". But its called a brain, for now.

 

[SF]

It seems like the really cool stuff like 'how does the graviton work?' and 'how does energy produce consciousness in the brain?', are pretty much unkowns.

Just curious: if you lived 100 years ago and you were introduced to a modern laptop, would you have considered "software" magic, at least as special as consciousness

Software does come from 0s and 1s and that seems pretty hard to understand; just looking inside the HDD for the windows does not work :p

 

[sd01g]

Just curious: if you lived 100 years ago and you were introduced to a modern laptop, would you have considered "software" magic, at least as special as consciousness

Software does come from 0s and 1s and that seems pretty hard to understand; just looking inside the HDD for the windows does not work :p

I hope that in 100 years we will understand and manipulate consciousness as well as we do 0s and 1s today.

 

[1016]

My humble opinion...

Mathematics is the ambiguous science. (it's attribute both nature and social)
Physics is the real science. (it's study "everything")
Chemistry is the central science. (its connects maths,phys,bio each nature)
Biology is the life science. (its always learning of organisms and enviroments)

While,
Mathematics is always partner with Physisc, whereas
Chemistry is always partner with Biology.
I guess these were everybody knew.

I'm just disagree with that statement is discriminating other sciences, who because he just to love the one he fascinates. Because all sciences are equally important.

 

[country boy]

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

-- Ernest Rutherford

The great mathematician, David Hilbert, said something like "Physics is too difficult to be left to physicists." He meant that the math was too hard for them. That has clearly changed since his time. But he may have thought that experimentalists like Rutherford were just stamp collecting.

 

[-Job-]

For any given problem there's a large number of possible adaptations. A solution to a problem is still a solution independently of it having coming up in physics or biology, or while cleaning your room. Above all what's important is the mathematics and abstract side of problems. The rest are variables.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I don't see much chance of physics providing the cure for cancer,or MS, or of uncovering the mysteries of human psychology for that matter, or for cracking the biology of the aging process, or explaining how the human mind works at a neurological level either: do you? Or for providing solutions to poverty and hunger, or economic difficulties, or providing us with a legal framework that works for the benefit of it's citizenry, or for controlling population or solving the issues of global warming. Or producing the next big drug for depression using x.

Anyway it's obviously just a bit of bravado from the Englishman, probably had a bit too much of the old ale when he said that. In other words it's what I tend to term the "my dad is better'n your dad", idea, whereby you are biased towards your dad because you happen to know the most about him.:tongue:

Same with the maths thing, if you don't know how to do the maths, you do what Einstein did, you take it to a mathematician, sciences don't exist in a vacuum

 

[ibo]

Chemistry is always partner with Biology.

Maths is used in chemisty too, as Rutherford would have known, seeing as he did work on discovering things about atoms. So i can't really understand how he could say other sciences are nothing compared to physics when he worked on things for chemistry. Unless chemistry was so insignificant back then that it was considered physics.

 

[Jake Eddowes]

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

-- Ernest Rutherford
No, it is a descriptive science like all others: it describes aspects of the universe the same as the rest do.

 

[apeiron]

The other view is that simplicity (physics) is actually just a subset of complexity (like the study of biology and systems science). Complexity may be the more general, the more fundamental, because that is the way the world actually is - in a developed state.

A classic cite here is from Schrodinger's What is Life?

“living matters, while not eluding the ‘laws of physics’ as established up to date, is likely to involve ‘other laws of physics’ hitherto unknown, which, however, once they have been revealed, will form just as integral a part of science as the former”.

Then even more bold is Robert Rosen. Here is a summary from The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life by Franklin Harold.

“[Rosen's] quest for principles that make organic systems different from inorganic ones does not lead him to invoke mysterious forces that breathe life into the common clay, but he does bid us to rethink the relationship between biology and physics, and that is quite radical enough. Both disciplines deal with systems, and for the past two centuries biologists have sought to interpret their subject by the extension of laws inferred by physicists from the study of simple mechanisms. That, in Rosen’s view, puts the cart before the horses: in reality, simple systems such as gases or planetary orbits are special and limited instances, while complex systems represent the general case. If organisms are ever to be understood as material physical entities, physics will first have to be transformed into a science of complex systems”.

Where does the future of fundamental physics lie? Perhaps in the principles of systems already uncovered by theoretical biology.

We are of course seeing the likes of Smolin picking up selection theory to talk about Darwinian cosmology.

Which is nice, but that bit of insight is what, 150 years old? Cutting edge stuff in theoretical biology is semiotics, or evo-devo, or dissipative structure theory.

(I should give an honorable mention to cosmologists like Charley Lineweaver who are using current concepts - http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/)

 

[MotoH]

You guys do realize this thread is three years old right?

 

[apeiron]

You guys do realize this thread is three years old right?

Yes, but physicists still believe the premise to be true!