The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
darkenergy
all other sciences branch from physics.

however physics fails to explain what a force is, what an electron, a quark or a gluon is. You may argue, however, that it is philosophy.


Not really sure i understand here. Physics can explain these, e.g. a gluon being a gauge boson etc etc etc, but may possibly struggle with where they came from, but obviously that is a philosophical issue yes.
Reply 41
darkenergy
physics can't explain anything, they develop a model to explain what is happening, not why, and often not very accurately either.


Physicists observe what is happening and create a model to explain why it is happening, so that further interactions can be predicted. And if they're disproved the model is ammended, or scrapped altogether.
I suppose this happens not only in physics but in other fields of science also.
diracdelta
Not really sure i understand here. Physics can explain these, e.g. a gluon being a gauge boson etc etc etc, but may possibly struggle with where they came from, but obviously that is a philosophical issue yes.

Yes. However physics is only able to explain what a gluon is, by introducing it because it fits into our observations, however they can only describe it mathematically.
Dont get into metaphysics. Ever. It's the most pointless, yet mentally excruciating thing ever!

Now or ever. I'm quite happy not knowing what an electron is, so long as I know what it does
Bennus
Maybe I should have put the 'fundamental level' in italics. I'm talking about quarks and gluons, fields (not the grassy kind) and forces, which are more fundamental then a cell, however tiny that cell is, although fundamental entites don't necassarily have to be small.


Okay then, tell me how gluons make DNA self-replicate or how they make the phospholipid bilayer form. I wasn't disagreeing with you, as you said physics studies the fundamentals, chemistry and biology do not study the fundamentals, ergo they can't be branches of physics.

I agree that physics studies the fundamentals of the universe (amongst other things), but that in itself is not the whole of science. Studying fundamentals is only part of the battle for knowledge, applying those fundamentals into more complex situations also requires great science and scientists, and they shouldn't be belittled by saying that they are somehow beneath the fundamental researchers.

Edit: However that is not to say that chemical and biological research relies on physical research, it does rely on the physical laws of the universe obviously, by physics cannot claim ownership of those things. There have been many amazing and vital discoveries in other scientific fields that have had nothing to do with physical research.
Reply 46
morals_officer
Dont get into metaphysics. Ever. It's the most pointless, yet mentally excruciating thing ever!

Now or ever. I'm quite happy not knowing what an electron is, so long as I know what it does


yeah, that's the whole problem of 'meta'-physics, it being beyond-physics - not saying everything beyond physics is guess work, you can still use logic, the only problem is that logic as we know it might just not work when it comes to that kind of thing - maybe not totally pointless to think about it, but pretty pointless :wink:
Adarah
yeah, that's the whole problem of 'meta'-physics, it being beyond-physics - not saying everything beyond physics is guess work, you can still use logic, the only problem is that logic as we know it might just not work when it comes to that kind of thing - maybe not totally pointless to think about it, but pretty pointless :wink:


I thought the only reason it was called metaphysics is because Aristotle wrote it after he wrote his physics.
Reply 48
ChemistBoy
I thought the only reason it was called metaphysics is because Aristotle wrote it after he wrote his physics.


yeah, there are two theories. One is as likely as the other. Meta means after or beyond in ancient Greek. So yes, it might have just been the name of his disertation after the one about the 'natural world' or it was the one about things that are beyond the natural world.
Both are possiblities and there are many arguments about it, but basically many philosophers have taking meta-physis literally, as in beyond the natural world, which is now the definition of metaphysics - so I'll go by that. Maybe it was just because it came after his writings on the natural world, but if so, I think it's still ok, because he seperated this section from the rest for that reason - that it did not belong in his writings on the natural world as it went beyond that. :wink:

Latest

Trending

Trending