What other science will most influence physics in the foreseeable future?
Technology integration with a eye on mental health, and fun. :yuck:
Since when is linguistics a science? Biology will have the biggest impact on biophysics.
The major influence on Physics will be what is has always been: Mathematics.
It will be a toss up between nano-tecknology=new materials and nuclear engineering=fission.
Mathematics is already making a huge impact on physics and it is thought that within the next five to fifty years the two will finally be reconciled. Logistics under pin mathematics and linguistics under pin logistics.
astronomy is the science with the most influence on the development of theoretical physics now and for the foreseeable future
what technologies will influence physics is another question:
the technology that e.g. goes into satellite observatories (gammaray, microwave observing) and neutrino astronomy and ultrahigh energy cosmic ray astronomy, and so forth is an important factor.
but instrument R and D is its own thing distinct from science.
so for the most influential science I say astronomy
I said technology integration.
There is a overflow of papers that go unnoticed by the physics, and science researchers.
Since the beginning of time, so to speak. I believe that lingistics will have the most profound impact on all sciences in the near future, particularly on physics.
Are you really not aware that linguistics is a science? Check dictionary.com, for starters.
\Lin*guis"tics\ (-t[i^]ks), n. [Cf. F. linguistique.] The science of languages, or of the origin, signification, and application of words; glossology.
[Free Trial - Merriam-Webster Unabridged.]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
n 1: the scientific study of language 2: the humanistic study of language and literature [syn: philology]
Philosophy will always be a big contributor to the science of Physics. Trepidaciously I might add that the relationship between Philosophy and Physics is a synergistic one. And that this relationship produces a tangible progress in the efficiency of the understanding of all things existencial.
Yeah, but it's a social science. That isn't science.
Not true, Functional Contextualists have become the first to bridge the cognitive and behavioral sciences in a consistent and nontrivial manner by studying linguistics. In other words, the hard numbers of the behavioral sciences can now be applied to the study of linguistics. No longer are the cognitive and social sciences always seperate and distinct entities from those of the so called hard sciences.
Jeez, guys, can you take a frickin' joke?
Why do you assume I was not joking?
I got a good chuckle out of the linguistics response!
What do you really know about physics? How do you know this? How do you organize this knowledge? I will give you a hint. You organize your knowledge of physics along the lines of the grammar of the language in which you think. You perhaps think, incorrectly, that there is only one way to view reality, and that your grammar provides a completely unbiased and universal way to view reality and to organize your understanding of physics. This is a major mistake on your part, in my opinion.
For example, physics speaks of space-time. However, the English language does not naturally support a unified concept of space-time, but instead subdivides the concept of space from the concept of time. It takes great theoretical effort for the mind to bridge this division that is built into our grammar.
Eventually, followers of physics will learn that in addition to looking outward, to the ends of the universe, in order to understand the structure of the world, they should also look inward, and analyze the structure of the language through which they filter 100% of all understanding that they have ever had about the structure of the world.
To respond to the original question, I think that linguistics is a safe bet.
Physics doesn't use language as a medium, it uses math. Words like "space-time" don't have any meaning in physics, except as much as they apply to math. You'll need to show the linguistic basis of math to do the same for physics.
Except when math is latin to the unskilled user. What you mean to say is those who know the language of math use it as a medium to understand physics.
Sure. I believe you. When you studied physics, you never used English. Everything was in math language. I believe that every book that you ever read on physics used only math, and had no English at all. Now, here on this forum, we never use English to make our points either, but only math.
When you ponder a theory in physics, or when you try to develop your own, do you really use no English at all?
I recommend that you give this a little more thought.
Linguistics have been a well grounded science since Acceptance and Commitment therapy proved itself clinically. It is derived from the work of Radical Behaviorists who became the first to meaningfully span the cognitive and behavioral sciences over the last thirty years or so.
The theories of physics are consistent and applicable across all linguistic lines, precisely because they are mathematically expressed. You can talk about an equation in a thousand different languages and every time you are expressing the same idea.
To give just one example of how this reasoning is not correct:
The Lorentz transformation is mathematically expressed, yet nobody knows what it means when v > c, since the time dilation factor becomes imaginary and nobody has a clue what "imaginary time" means. Yet several mathematical equations also give imaginary results, and we often don't have a problem with those. For instance, "imaginary current" has a very clear meaning in electricity, "imaginary position" has a very clear meaning in mechanics, and so on.
Back to the Lorentz transformation, the only way to find out what "imaginary time" means is by investigating our language, not our math. There's nothing in mathematics that says v can't be greater than c in the equation; it's only our inability to make (linguistic) sense of the concept "imaginary time" which prevents us from asserting that "an object can move faster than the speed of light" (a purely linguistic statement as well, whose truth does not depend on mathematics at all)
Either that, or physics is not as consistent as physicists claim.
It is certainly very easy for you to make this claim, isn't it? Can you provide any evidence to support it?
Do you know a thousand different langauges such that you have any evidence to back up your statement, or are you just making a claim that you suppose is true?
To me, your statement reflects clearly the fact that you have little understanding of the differences among languages. Concepts such as space and time are not mathematical concepts, they are words in language. Not all languages have the same grammtically induced concept for these words as English. In fact, most do not.
You are suggesting that all statements in physics are mathematical equations, and that all topics in physics are discussed on the basis of fundamental equations.
Theories in physics are based on postulates. These postulates are described using language, not using equations. In order for an equation to have meaning, a linguistic environment is prerequisite.
Separate names with a comma.