Talk:Physics/wip/leadproposal2

Lead Proposal 2

 * In everyday terms, physics is the science that deals with the description of the world around us, and attempts to understand how objects interact with each other - colloquially through principles such as forces, energy, action, etc.


 * Different people, however, have different definitions of what they regard physics to be, and another common definition is that, "physics is the science of nature" [1,2,3,4,5,6]. This is more commonly heard in more formal or academic settings, and further discussion of these issues are presented in the Introduction section.

[I then suggest that the first topic discussed in the intro be "issues of definition" (or something similar), where we discuss the reasons as to why there is no universally accepted definition, and possibly describe the arguments that have been made for and against each of the two definitions (whilst tying not to introduce any bias in favour of either definition).]

References

[1] H.D. Young & R.A. Freedman, University Physics with Modern Physics: 11th Edition: International Edition (2004), Addison Wesley. Chapter 1, section 1.1, page 2.

[2] Feynman, Leighton, & Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1977), Addison Wesley. Chapter 2, pages 2-1 and 2-2.

[3] Albert Einstein (1936), Physics and Reality, summarized in his Essays in Physics (1950) New York, Philosophical Library p. 51

[4] Albert Einstein (1918, Max Planck's 60th birthday) "Principles of Research" in Ideas and Opinions, ISBN 0-517-55601-4 (1954) p.226.

[5] W.V.O. Quine, Theories and Things (1981), Harvard University Press. Page 99.

[6] Steve Holzner, Physics for Dummies (2006), Wiley. Chapter 1, pages 7-8. See also http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0764554336/ref=isib_dp_pt/102-1190768-8928948#reader-link, Amazon Online Reader: Physics For Dummies (For Dummies(Math & Science)), last viewed 24 November 2006.

Krea 19:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

=Discussion=

Comments, Criticisms, and Suggestions
''Please place comments, criticisms, or suggestion here. Thank you. Krea 19:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Krea, I have some citations to add to the 1,2,3,4 of the content page. --Ancheta Wis 00:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Physics constitutes a logical system of thought which is in a state of evolution, and whose basis cannot be obtained through distillation by any inductive method from the experiences lived through, but which can only be attained by free invention."

"[The] general laws on which the structure of theoretical physics is based claim to be valid for any natural phenomenon whatsover. With them, it ought to be possible to arrive at the description, that is to say, the theory, of every natural process, including life, by means of pure deduction ... "

"In the century before Newton, physics was ... beginning to take on the modern attitude that the only way to see how nature behaves is to make an observation or experiment... "

"[N]uclear physics ... has its slow beginnings in World War I, and broke onto the world with an air of omen and power in World War II. In between it acquired that maturity in the hands of such masters of the subject as Hans Bethe ... Nobody who had the slightest feeling for the nature of the world could have failed to ask 'what makes the stars and the sun shine?' At last this could be answered."

"There is ... a rhythm and a pattern between the phenomena of nature which is not apparent to the eye but only to the eye of analysis; and it is these rhythms and patterns which we call Physical Laws. ... Really what I am considering is nature as seen as a result of detailed analysis, but mainly I wish to speak about only the most overall general qualities of nature."

Perhaps some of this might be useful to you:

Twenty-five hundred years ago, in Greece, physics was natural philosophy, and nature was its subject. The fundamental questions posed over the millennia then affected the development of physics:

For example, the philosophers could inquire
 * What is the world made of?

and atoms were conjectured to comprise the world, as early as time of Democritus. This was reinstated by Dalton 200 years ago and is our current thinking about matter. At the same time, the role of energy was recognized, and applied in steam engines to lift water, to drive railroad cars, and to amplify human energy. The recognition of the forces of nature allowed mankind to explore and harness more and more of the resources of the world.

Space and time were stable concepts, over the millennia, which corresponded directly to our intuition of the world. But the role of experiment, in the last 400 years, since Galileo, gradually has led us to more fundamental concepts: mass, charge, atomic number, spin, and a set of physical attributes which we can apply not just to physics, but also to chemistry and to other systems in the world, in technology and engineering.

By year 1800, physics came to be recognized as the science of Newton; in the next century, Maxwell synthesized the equations of electromagnetism. By year 1900, physicists, beginning with Poincare, unified Newton's equations and Maxwell's equations with special relativity. Einstein then generalized special relativity to unify space and time. However, over the twentieth century, a theory of matter, quantum mechanics arose, which has not yet been unified with Einstein's work.

Today, physicists are still engaged in the exploration of these laws, and in the construction of ideas which can adequately explain the world we know. Their task is not yet done.


 * Excellent. I imagine there will be a lot more references when we look at the works and opinions of the great physicists. The second reference that you give is significant: it backs up my assertion that some physicists do believe in the broad definition in the "strong" sense - that is, in the sense that physics is really all of science. I appreciate the fact that you are actually looking to see what the physicists actually say: I shall spend some time in the library tomorrow too if possible.
 * Unfortunately, all of what you have mentioned above I already knew. That is the problem: naturally, I have some basic knowledge of the history of physics, but I would really like to know more of the finer details - such as when it could be regarded that physics, in the modern sense, emerged. I hear Aristotle was said to be the first true physicist, but I know of no evidence to back this up. As it turns out, I purchased the complete works of Plato and Aristotle last year and so this question I could answer in principle, but there are other questions that would be more difficult for me to answer - such as the opinions of other ancient philosophers.

Carnap

 * By the way, I gave, as per your suggestion, Carnap's book a cursory glance. It appears, as the intro of section 48 says, that he tries to formulate the rules of the topology of the macroscopic world (i.e. GR) through logical relations instead of the usual way GR is taught (through transformations of co-ordinate systems and the analysis of invariants). It's very interesting since I haven't seen this before. I need to take a proper look at it before I can say anything of any real meaning, but he says that he tries to treat the topological properties of spacetime through topological means. Thus, the first thing that comes to mind is whether these axioms also describe the essential properties of GR. I don't know when I'll be able to read the book in any real sense because I'll be extraordinarily busy this winter, and possibly up to July! But, I'll try to do as much as possible - and at least try to read the basics. Krea 02:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: physics, in the modern sense --
 * "Around 1800 'physics' in its old inclusive sense, modified to imply experiment and some measure of research, lost out to a new division of science bearing the same name. ... The new physics of 1800 restricted itself to the inorganic world ... The  physics of 1800 differed in scope from later physics by including meteorology and parts of subjects shared with chemistry, like atomism, pneumatics and thermodynamics ... "
 * Sony has actually written in their corporate creed "to eliminate the artificial distinction between physics and chemistry"
 * Sorry, I wasn't implying that you didn't have this knowledge. I was merely wordsmithing. --Ancheta Wis 03:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no, let me apologize: I know you weren't insulting my intelligence, and I apologize if what I wrote gave that suggestion - it's just that, by sheer coincidence, I had just thought about how little I knew of the ancient history of physics and could only regurgitate something like what you wrote, so I replied explaining that I was frustrated with my own ignorance. Krea 00:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Einstein (1879-1955) and Carnap (1891-1970) did talk. Einstein, in communication with Carnap, admitted that there is "something essential about the the now" which lay "just outside the realm of science" . Davies, a physicist, estimates that our innate sense of now cannot last for more than a fraction of a second . --Ancheta Wis 06:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Coincidently, I happen to have Davies' book, About Time, and have been meaning to read it (for the past 5 years!) It seems interesting and I hope, and expect, he has something important to say about it. But, this is probably material that should be left for later sections in the artice. Krea 13:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is sure the simplest start for the article
--Strawberry Island 04:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Although, I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing! It depends on one's outlook I suppose. I tried to make the lead section brief but relevant, and to the point - just so that a reader would be given a concise definition of what physics is (and reckoned that the finer details should probably be placed in the Introduction section). Any corrections - even for the the most insignificant bit of detail - is welcome. Krea 13:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How everything works
Louis Bloomfield, a professor of physics at the University of Virginia, has written several books which introduce physics to laymen by explaining physics in terms of everyday life. "This is a book about the real world and real physics; I merely report on both." . A Nobel laureate, Carl Wieman has used these books in his own physics classes with great success. Bloomfield writes that the most rewarding experience is when his students can explain just why it is that some part of their lives have just illustrated physics concepts, such as a scuba diver who could explain why the color of the lobsters she was seeing also gave her the depth to which she had dived.

From the forest level
This proposed introduction has several problems. To me it seems vague and ill-defined:

"physics is the science that deals with the description of the world around us"

This part of the first sentence is conceptually flawed. It claims that there is already in existence a "description of the world around us" and that physics then comes upon the scene with the intent of "dealing with it." The writer's intent was most likely to say something else, and s/he should work to make the words better match the original intention.

"and attempts to understand how objects interact with each other"

The second part of the first sentence again anthropomorphizes physics and creates in this reader the impression that physics is stuck in an intellectual process that has thus far been unsuccessful, and that the process deals with something called "objects." The root meaning of "object" is "something thrown in the way." Its first meaning is "a thing that can be seen or touched." To me, the term "object" tends to rule out most of what physics actually deals with.

"- colloquially through principles such as forces, energy, action, etc."

Saying "colloquially" indicates that the terms of reference about to be mentioned are to be regarded as flawed and only suitable for use in communicating with non-experts.

The word "principles" is dangerously ambiguous in this context. Does it mean (1) "the cause of something"? (2) "a natural tendency"? (3) "A fundamental motivating force upon which others are based"? (4) "The law of nature by reason of which a thing operates, as 'capillary attraction is the principle of a blotter'"? (5) "The method of a thing's operation, as in, 'the principle of a gasoline engine is internal combustion"?

"Different people, however, have different definitions of what they regard physics to be, and another common definition is that, "physics is the science of nature" [1,2,3,4,5,6]. This is more commonly heard in more formal or academic settings, and further discussion of these issues are presented in the Introduction section."

Once again the prose seems to damn with faint praise. It seems to imply that there is real physics and then some "science of nature" that is discussed in the rarefied world of formal discourse and academia.

I think I can see (assuming I have read between the lines properly) how this introductory passage could be put in better form, but as it stands I think it is seriously flawed, sorry to say. P0M 00:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)