What is the Definition of Physics?

[Juan R.]

Physics is everything that can be studied, excluding fields of Biology and Chemistry.

And excluding economy, sociology, mathematics, geology, history, philosophy...

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

It's the philosophy that describes natural phenomenas..

 

[Enos]

You mean, so far excluding...

 

[Juan R.]

It's the philosophy that describes natural phenomenas..

Chemistry describes chemical (i.e. natural) phenomena, but chemistry is not physics. This is the reason of different names, different schools, different universities and careers, different books (there are books on chemistry!), There is a ACS that is not APS, etc.

 

[Juan R.]

You mean, so far excluding...

See Enos how confused people that claim that physics is about almost all that from a global rational point of view physics is around almost nothing. The DW standard index contains

# 100 Philosophy and Psychology
# 200 Religion
# 300 Social Science
# 400 Language
# 500 Natural Science and Mathematics
# 600 Technology (Applied Sciences)
# 700 Arts
# 800 Literature
# 900 Geography and History

and the 500 section si divided in subsections

# 520 Astronomy
# 530 Physics
# 540 Chemistry
# 550 Earth Sciences
# 560 Paleontology
# 570 Life Sciences
# 580 Botanical Sciences
# 590 Zoological Sciences

Even ignoring division of other non-500 index, Physics is around 1/15!

It is difficult that can explain everything .

 

[Maxos]

What on Earth is this index, you have always on your mouth?

Anyway, I do not care.

Physics cannot be explained within other subjects, else this subject would be Philosophy, which has no longer means to understand Physics.

You know, God is dead.

 

[Enos]

Sure, If one takes it at an educational level. What I meant is if there is a theory in physics that explains everything. Wouldn't it be able to explain everything, if not, is it a theory of everything?

 

[Juan R.]

What on Earth is this index, you have always on your mouth?

Anyway, I do not care.

Physics cannot be explained within other subjects, else this subject would be Philosophy, which has no longer means to understand Physics.

You know, God is dead.

The question is that physics is a science like others, with its own postulates, theories, and field of application.

The others sciences also are sciences.

 

[Juan R.]

Sure, If one takes it at an educational level. What I meant is if there is a theory in physics that explains everything. Wouldn't it be able to explain everything, if not, is it a theory of everything?

Since physics is the science of basic laws of nature, the search of a realistic TOE is impossible. At the best, physicists could obtain (i doubt) a basic framework of the basic laws of the basic items of the Universe but other sciences develop special laws for concrete systems.

Since reductionism fails, there is not posibility for deriving special laws from physics laws. Therefore, others sciences are autonomous sciences. Already cited above the article on Foundations of Chemistry.

 

[cscott]

Since reductionism fails, there is not posibility for deriving special laws from physics laws. Therefore, others sciences are autonomous sciences. Already cited above the article on Foundations of Chemistry.

Generaly, is it the accepted view that reductionism fails?

 

[Juan R.]

Generaly, is it the accepted view that reductionism fails?

I do not undesrand your question very well, can you explain?

 

[inha]

Generaly, is it the accepted view that reductionism fails?

Amoung condensed matter physicsts is it a common view. And CM physicists are the majority.

 

[cscott]

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.

 

[Juan R.]

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.

 

[cscott]

Thanks for summing that up nicely, and sorry for derailing this thread a bit

 

[Caesar_Rahil]

Physics is a science on which every other science is dependent.

 

[Doc Al]

I think this thread has gone on long enough.