Your favorite definition of physics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around participants' favorite definitions of physics and science, exploring the distinctions between physics and other scientific disciplines such as chemistry and biology. It includes various perspectives on the nature and scope of physics, its relationship with mathematics, and the definitions of science.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that physics is the study of motion, while others argue this definition is too narrow and excludes areas like statics and optics.
  • Several participants suggest that physics is a subset of mathematics, with varying opinions on the implications of this relationship.
  • Some contributions highlight that physics must prove itself against observed reality, as noted by Feynman.
  • Definitions of science are discussed, with some participants emphasizing that not all scientific laws are general truths, citing examples like Newton's laws.
  • There is mention of the relationship between chemistry and physics, with some asserting that chemistry is a subset of physics, while others argue against this view, referencing historical perspectives from figures like Mario Bunge.
  • Participants express differing views on the definitions of physics and science, with some favoring broad definitions and others advocating for more specific ones.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the definitions of physics and science, with multiple competing views and ongoing debate about the relationships between these fields.

Contextual Notes

Some definitions presented may depend on specific interpretations of terms like "motion" and "general truths," and there are unresolved questions regarding the boundaries between physics, chemistry, and other sciences.

  • #31
The first step of applied mathematics. Engineering is the second step. By comparison, most of the other sciences use relatively little math.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
humanino said:
Prigogine I know his work rather well, and I do not think we are talking about the same issues, at all.

Are you talking about Byung Chan Eu ? Can you please point out to a technical reference describing the equation you are referring to and how the equation was suggested ? I believe this work amounts to using a large computer simulation and fit it with a simple function. I hope I have the wrong reference.

You say yourself that reductionism is dead because of findings in the late XXth century. But Poincare stumbled onto chaos long before that, in fact at the end of the XIXth century, and it just took a long time for non-mathematician to realize what chaos and non-linear dynamics mean. A good reference would be "Structural Stability and Morphogenesis" for instance, much earlier than what you quote. Of course you will not get non-linear behavior out of a simple Shrodinger equation. Anyway, I will wait until a proper reference has been provided.

Prigogine knows that the laws of chemical reactions are not derivable from quantum electrodynamics in despite of your beliefs. What is more, Prigogine starts one of his last papers Chemical kinetics and dynamics with a critique of the well-known Dirac quote about the reduction of chemistry to quantum mechanics.

About Eu, a good reference is his monograph Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics: Ensemble Method. He suggested his equation after checking that the related Schrödinger-based theories could not explain all the transport phenomena of his interest. As a consequence he postulated his equation. As he correctly notes, the Schrödinger equation can be obtained as a special case from his equation, but the inverse is not true.

Nowhere I said that reductionism was dead because of work on chaos. At contrary I wrote about other three different topics.

I think that I already said that this thread is about definitions of physics, and I think that I do not need to write more about reductionism.
 
  • #33
DoggerDan said:
The first step of applied mathematics. Engineering is the second step. By comparison, most of the other sciences use relatively little math.

What is for you the difference between physics and mathematical physics?
 
  • #34
Enough.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
6K