Your favorite definition of physics

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on defining science and the distinctions between physics, chemistry, and biology. Participants explore various definitions of physics, often emphasizing its relationship with mathematics. Key points include the notion that physics is a branch of science focused on understanding matter and energy, while science itself is described as a system of knowledge derived from the scientific method. There is debate over whether chemistry is a subset of physics, with some arguing that chemistry operates independently, particularly in areas like quantum chemistry. The conversation also touches on the philosophical concept of reductionism, with some asserting that not all chemical laws can be derived from physics, highlighting the complexity of scientific disciplines. The role of mathematics in both physics and engineering is acknowledged, with some claiming that mathematics is essential for modeling reality. Overall, the thread reflects a deep engagement with the foundational aspects of scientific inquiry and the interrelations among different scientific fields.
  • #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
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K