Talk:Physics/wip/leadproposal3

Lead proposal 3
Physics is the branch of science whose goal is to understand nature in terms of simple and universal truths. Physicists create theories to describe the underlying laws of nature in a predictive way, and state their theories in the language of mathematics to make them succinct and precise. Traditionally, physics has proceeded by understanding the smallest and simplest components of matter and the interactions between them, and involves ideas such as energy, forces, space, and time. The foundation of physics, like the other sciences, is the scientific method; experimental observation is the ultimate test of any physical theory.

Classical physics traditionally included the fields of mechanics, optics, electricity, magnetism, acoustics and heat. The more recent fields of general and special relativity have also usually been placed within this category. Modern physics is a term normally used to cover fields which rely on quantum theory, including quantum mechanics, atomic physics, nuclear physics, particle physics and condensed matter physics. Although this distinction can be commonly found in older writings, it is of limited current significance as quantum effects are now understood to be of importance even in fields previously considered purely classical.

Physics research is divided into two main branches: experimental physics and theoretical physics. Experimental physics focuses mainly on empirical research, and on the development and testing of theories against practical experiment. Theoretical physics is more closely related to mathematics, and involves generating and working through the mathematical implications of systems of physical theories, even where experimental evidence of their validity may not be immediately available.

—BryanD 23:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Last two paragraphs from Proposal 1

=Discussion=

My motivations: We need to succinctly give the flavor of physics to a general audience without sacrificing the broad purview of physics. Let me know what you think! —BryanD 23:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I like everything about this version except the first sentence ("...goal is to understand nature in terms of simple and universal truths"). It's a vast oversimplication, and in the broad sense of physics as what physicists do, it's probably not even an accurate description of the most common goal of physics research.  The first sentence of proposal 1 is closer, although I would like to see some mention at the very beginning of physics being both a body/area of [real and potential] knowledge and an academic discipline.  This version is definitely superior to the other two overall, however.  I would support the first sentence from proposal one with the rest of this proposal.--ragesoss 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I too like this formulation. As for the first sentence, I would slightly alter the beginning and find a better ending:

"Physics is the science concerned with the discovery of the universal empirical generalizations that enable us to make predictions regarding interactions among...."


 * Now I'm groping for a way to most effectively draw the line between, e.g., what is studied in quantum physics and what is studied in Pauling's Nature of the Chemical Bond. There are "emergent" characteristics of matter that, prior to the second half of the twentieth century, one could not hope to calculate or otherwise predict.  These characteristics are relevant to things like the nature of chemical bonds, but as matters of scienctific inquiry they come up as calculated results from fundamental theory rather than being the focus of fundamental theory.


 * I had a quick look at Pauling's Introduction, but it wasn't helpful since he refers to the specific physical components he wants to talk about without inventing an umbrella term for them. P0M 01:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The word "enable" in the suggested sentence is particularly effective and appropriate, since it indicates the distinction to "carrying out". Consequently, what is studied in quantum physics appears to be well distinguished from what is studied by means (in application) of quantum physics. If, being enabled by (the methods of) quantum physics, predictions are being made concerning the binding among atoms -- that's chemistry, not physics proper.
 * (Honi&#8203; &#8203;&#8203;soit qui mal y pense). Frank W ~@) R 12:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * p.s. 03:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC): The suggested sentence is already a mouthful without even being done yet. Also, "interaction" has a certain active connotation ("something does happen, as opposed to - not") which doesn't necessarily conform to a particular prediction being made. Is "... make predictions regarding nature." a sufficient ending?