User talk:Ancheta Wis/p


 * We have the permittivity of free space as a starting point for your proposal. As Feynman points out, the name of something is not as important as the concept it represents; a plain-language description of the topic ought to be our goal. In this way, we can build an encyclopedia which endures. If the point is that we ought to reduce the number of articles simply to make a topic in physics manageable, then we could address this with navigation templates and overview articles. Then obscure or redundant articles would simply be unused or untouched. But if the concern is to simply get across the understandability of physics, then why isn't there more emphasis on equations. As compressed expressions of our knowledge, they are unsurpassed, in my opinion. This would also tend to reduce duplication and overlap because one writes an equation at his peril, here, or in physics in general; it then becomes much easier to be proven wrong. --Ancheta Wis 10:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hans Christian Ørsted (1777-1851) was heavily influenced by Kant's Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft (Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science). In 1799, Ørsted's Philosophisk Repertorium noted Ørsted's "First Introduction to General Physics" (1811) exemplified the steps of observation, hypothesis , deduction and experiment. In 1805, based on his researches on electromagnetism Ørsted came to believe that electricity is propagated by undulatory action (i.e., fluctuation). By 1820, he felt confident enough in his beliefs that he resolved to demonstrate them in a public lecture, and in fact observed a small magnetic effect from a galvanic circuit (i.e., voltaic circuit), without rehearsal ,
 * "In order to achieve completeness in our knowledge of nature, we must start from two extremes, from experience and from the intellect itself. ... The former method must conclude with natural laws, which it has abstracted from experience, while the latter must begin with principles, and gradually, as it develops more and more, it becomes ever more detailed. Of course, I speak here about the method as manifested in the process of the human intellect itself, not as found in textbooks, where the laws of nature which have been abstracted from the consequent experiences are placed first because they are required to explain the experiences. When the empiricist in his regression towards general laws of nature meets the metaphysician in his progression, science will reach its perfection."

1. Definition
-- See list of topics to the right, or see the categories

1.1 Originally, physics (from the Greek, φύσις (phúsis), "nature" and φυσική (phusiké), "knowledge of nature") was the science of nature.

1.2 Over the course of twenty-five hundred years, physics has become known for a series of fundamental laws. Called natural philosophy, physics was the science for identifying the constituents of the natural world.

1.2.1 The role of energy   was identified by the eighteenth century, and precisely defined by the nineteenth century.

1.2.2 The atom of matter was successfully subsumed into the infrastructure of the sciences, which  are indebted to physics. During this time, science became professionalized and specialized; physical explanations for various complex systems were  formulated, for  chemistry, for biology , , and more recently for neuroscience.

1.2.2.1 Now that E=mc² has publicized the equivalence of matter and energy, any definition of the mass noun "matter" must also state the energy levels involved in that physical system, for matter can be created or destroyed, at the cost of that energy.

1.2.3 The role of information, or negative entropy in a open system was first recognized in physics in the late nineteenth century and explicated in the twentieth century, with expression in engineering hardware, software agents, and in biological systems, in our time.

1.3 It is difficult to state a prospective or even current definition for physics, for each researchers' focus defines their subject of study. Thus we can talk retrospectively of Galileo's physics or Einstein's physics, but we cannot talk of a current researcher's physics, or a future researcher's physics without determining their philosophy. For example, Murray Gell-Mann's contribution to complex systems should be noted.

1.3.0.1 In an aggregate definition of physics, such as in a list of items (in the TOC at right), the items serve to name something which is incompressible, which cannot be further reduced, such as the Greek concept of the atom of matter. This was Newton's conception of matter. But physics has discovered energy regimes where atoms have parts, and the definition of fundamental can then be questioned, for the energy regime must also be stated for such a definition to hold, whether it be room temperature or $$10^{32} $$ kelvin at the instant of the big bang.

1.3.0.2 But an aggregate need not have tensile strength; then the slightest pull would separate the components. Thus a proper definition of physics should also include a unifying agent, to bind it into a subject.

1.3.0.3 One candidate for that unifier is Nature itself. Nature, to man, seems welcoming, our home, the source of our life. But overall, the universe is hostile to life and to us. Indeed, life itself is a huge competition of life-forms for their individual advantage. And Nature, with its enormous powers, can be hostile to us as well. Thus we cooperate in symbiosis to survive it.

1.3.0.3.1 Earth is part of that Nature which holds us. But Earth is built largely from iron, an ash of stellar nucleosynthesis in the burning of the stars; thus our earth is composed of stellar ash, and we were made from the stars, because gravitation kept the elements from which we were made on this planet. The lighter elements which we breathe are kept here by virtue of gravitation. One of the problems in the exercise books of the Feynman Lectures on Physics asks "what is the probability that we have drunk from the water which our forebears drank?" and the answer depends on your philosophy.

1.3.1 Physics itself is further developing, both inward (beyond the atomic nucleus, which requires the use of ever-higher energy regimes) and outward (by consideration of the circumstances for big bangs and the development of our own universe from the multiplicity of multiverses which could have been ours). But the two realms are currently not unified under one theory.

''Physics need not be considered an arcane or difficult subject. Classical mechanics can be amply illustrated on children's playground equipment or in a sports stadium. Read on for more -- ''

Note to the reader: You may, without loss of generality, skip any point marked by a bullet below, e.g.
 * This denotes a detail.
 * "Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things." —Isaac Newton
 * "To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, and leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things." —Isaac Newton

8. External Links
Word counts:
 * 1) Definition, not including the citations or italicized words -- 312   words

1.3.0.x -- 150 words

Further development from a tutorial point of view might place the physics of the playground (i.e., classical mechanics) under section 3 or section 4 depending on consensus.

Interrelationships of the topics of physics might go in section 3 or section 4 depending on consensus.

Some of the contributions to complex systems by Murray Gell-Mann and others might be placed in section 5.

It would be a shame not to highlight David R. Ingham's venn diagram for physics.


 * Filll, as you undoubtedly know, there is a difference between all of science and new science. It is quite telling that physicists tend to gravitate to whatever is new, and to leave the rest for those who wish to follow. It's like the development of the transistor; they were physicists in large part; the person who brought transistor technology to Sony/Japan was -- a geophysicist; one of the pair who discovered the structure of DNA was -- a converted physicist; the World Web Web was invented -- at CERN, not to mention arXiv.org. What is common to all of this is a wide-open viewpoint and the willingness to go the extra distance to the new knowledge, whereever it lies. But it can be a hard road. This hardship might also be noted in the article.
 * MIght I create a formal section for the nomination of a moderator? --Ancheta Wis 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:seismology

There is no formal definition of physics; many people have their own definitions in order to satisfy their specific requirement. Some definitions of physics include:
 * 1) A practical description of the remit
 * 2) One that gives you a feel for the subject
 * 3) A more rigourous definition of physics, however, is
 * 4) Essential, informative, and relevant beyond the characteristics of current physics
 * 5) Physics is a general set of principles thought to be obeyed by all known systems in nature. Practicing physicists traditionally study a limited (albeit rather broad) set of phenomena which are most amenable to direct study using the aforementioned concepts. Most notably this involves fundamental properties of matter, energy, space, and time (which are now all known to be intricately related). As human knowledge has advanced, the set of physical principles and the phenomena fruitfully studied with them have both increased, leading to active interdisciplinary fields such as biophysics and geophysics. Nonetheless direct application of the laws of physics is (currently) prohibitively difficult in many cases. Thus fields like biology, chemistry and others have their own methods and concepts which cannot be directly derived from the presumed underlying physical laws. So physics is not any study of nature; that is natural science, different fields of which have developed their own tools and language. But, importantly, should any field of science discover some phenomena which violates basic laws of physics, the laws would have to be modified in order to retain their general, encompassing stature. Finally, this article is for the general reader, not an expert, and should be written so. Joshua Davis 04:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Position D
1. Rutherford's Definition "All science is either physics or stamp collecting" --Ernest Rutherford [D] [D] Ernest Rutherford in J. B. Birks Rutherford at Manchester (1962)

8 words.

84 word paraphrase: Science is not merely a collection of facts, but more importantly, a consistent, coherent structure of interconnected results which follow scientific method.

At the time Rutherford spoke, only physics could claim this position. Anything else became a series of ad-hoc positions (stamp collecting: matter, energy, atoms, penguins). Biology had not yet discovered the structure of DNA; the atoms of chemistry had not yet been explained by quantum mechanics. Progress has come by using the constructs of physics.

Confer with Joshua Davis' statement included in.

Position E
1. Einstein's Definition "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." [E]

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

Confer with Noetica's and Krea's statements above. I do not have a copy of Einstein's Ideas and Opinions which actually dovetail with Position B above. --Ancheta Wis 01:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"[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 ... " [E2] 48 words. [E2] Albert Einstein (1918, Max Planck's 60th birthday) "Principles of Research" in Ideas and Opinions, ISBN 0-517-55601-4  (1954) p.226. --Ancheta Wis 08:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Space or distance, length

Time or duration

Mass or measure of matter

Charge a property of matter

Frequency Feynman 1 2-5 Units of Hertz, or oscillation/sec

Energy

Temperature

Entropy


 * Well, what does physics have that no other science does?
 * Sets of well-known equations, some with centuries of use. A community of researchers who know what to do with them. Sets of industries which have applied them. Chemistry and Biology are slowly coming on-line with computational chemistry, etc
 * Some history of investigation: some of the data has been accumulated over millennia. Now biology especially has an analog of this with species with billions of years of evolution in their genetic code, and with primates, with species perhaps 10 million years old, with their super-fast visual processing. So the species can be viewed as a database of DNA investigation of a hostile Earth.
 * A philosophical base. Sorry Joshua if that seems too pro-philosophical.
 * A community of technologists in symbiosis with the science. This is a clear advantage over the biologists, who currently do not produce artificial life. or artificial brains.
 * A symbiosis with mathematics.
 * A history of community with like-minded researchers. This does not excuse the obverse, such as hostility to researchers like Ludwig Boltzmann
 * Strong foundation in scientific method. Other sciences such as biology have not undergone the reductionist revolutions.


 * Well, Krea, the past weeks have served to solidify a proposed definition. It has some distinct positions in it, but the other versions do as well:
 * Physics can be defined as that science which seeks those fundamental laws to which the universe is subject.
 * Now fundamental refers to those equations which can be expressed as differential equations, typically in an inertial frame, but with respect to some well-defined transformation law, defined by the symmetries of the system under discussion.


 * Let's please not dismiss the concepts behind systems far from equilibrium. They need not be biological. What if this discussion were encapsulated for the future. --Ancheta Wis 01:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Krea, I have a small definition for you:
 * A physicist is someone who discovers a law of nature.
 * Now that could include a lot of people, if they knew nothing beforehand. So one would have to qualify it to make it more conventional and sharper
 * A physicist is someone who discovers a new law of nature.
 * In other words, physicist is a badge of honor, in my book. A child who understands something on her own, and does right by it, has accomplished something.
 * M, It is not shameful not to have attained the title. If you want to accomplish something noteworthy, how about starting here and now. Work with us, by helping us converge on a suitable definition.
 * There is no choice. Noetica's idea of Ecumenism and pluralism are the only visible route out of this labyrinth of words. Might we heed the words of Galileo, the physicist, quoted above, and listen to the message that Nature is speaking to us, loud and clear, right now.


 * SFC9394, if we consider the productivity of this page, might I suggest that something be restructured. It is not right that we continue in this fashion. We need something else. Failing that, we should remove the note at the top of the Physics article, perhaps leaving it on the talk page, with a slightly more modest font and box size, in keeping with the accomplishments so far.


 * This effort of definition has re-hashed things over 3 times. Since some of us appear to specialize in commentary, perhaps we might present less the of type of argumentation that diverts and diverges, at a time when we are trying to converge. Might I request that we take such commentary 'under advisement', during definition phase. There is nothing wrong with any of the arguments on the page above. But the timing of the contributions is wrong, if the article is to be developed in the specified sequence.


 * This page appears to be re-creating Nupedia in miniature. In other words, it is wasting a lot of people's time.    But strident insistence on 'Physics is x, y, and z' is uncomfortably close to the arguments about the four humors of the western ancients. Now how would that look to anyone in the future? How would anyone who then believed in the five essences of Chinese civilization accept such categorical statements? How would any progress get made in any kind of science? Answer: by reconciling conflict. Perhaps by reaching common ground. May I ask us all to avoid Tendentious editing and place your comments in the context of the article's current phase and stage of development.
 * As an aside, what would be wrong with Newton's method as applied to article definition; in other words, give up the insistence on strict sequential development, and simply let the editors work on the wip page directly?
 * Krea, there appears to be an analogy to a reactor vessel here: the Pressure, Temperature, Volume, Mixing ratio, and chemical population are currently not producing the expected chemical reaction. M points out that 3 editors are insufficent. At Wikimania, User:fuzheado noted that the number needs to be about 35 for satisfactory pages. --Ancheta Wis 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)