Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Physics, I just do not get it, can somebody please start off with something very simple and explain the definition of physics?


    Secondly can somebody please explain the meaning and intent of science?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Physics, I just do not get it, can somebody please start off with something very simple and explain the definition of physics.
    Physics is the study of explaining how and why things happen.

    Secondly can somebody please explain the meaning and intent of science?
    Well, the purpose of Science is by no means under the influence of the meaning of the word, but I believe science comes from a Latin word, Scientia, meaning "know", but I'm not sure.

    For as the purpose of Science, it's the systematic study of explaining and predicting natural phenomenon. By systematic I mean following orderly physical laws.

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Absent Agent)
    Physics is the study of explaining how and why things happen.



    Well, the purpose of Science is by no means under the influence of the meaning of the word, but I believe science comes from a Latin word, Scientia, meaning "know", but I'm not sure.

    For as the purpose of Science, it's the systematic study of explaining and predicting natural phenomenon. By systematic I mean following orderly physical laws.
    What do you mean by predicting? it sounds rather mystic!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    What do you mean by predicting? it sounds rather mystic!
    Yes, it sounds mystic in the sense of being able to say what happens in actual reality without prior reference to experience, but predictions (which are called inductive inferences in a wider sense) are made on the basis of previous set of observations or experimental results generally thought to occur in the same way at all times. Of course, this has its problems, of which The Problem of Induction is the example, and from this perspective science can be considered to be a paradigm of inductive reasoning, but due to apparent constancy of physical laws, the results drawn from the initial set of experimental observation give us a good reason to believe that the predictions are true.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Absent Agent)
    Yes, it sounds mystic in the sense of being able to say what happens in actual reality without prior reference to experience, but predictions (which are called inductive inferences in a wider sense) are made on the basis of previous set of observations or experimental results generally thought to occur in the same way at all times. Of course, this has its problems, of which The Problem of Induction is the example, and from this perspective science can be considered to be a paradigm of inductive reasoning, but due to apparent constancy of physical laws, the results drawn from the initial set of experimental observation give us a good reason to believe that the predictions are true.


    I kind of think the word predict is a bit misleading, I do not think random things are predictable for example, and I associate the word predict with something has such as predicting next weeks lottery results, I do not see the repeat of results to be a predictable thing but rather inevitable but thank you for your clarification.


    So to be a good scientist , one must be objective ?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Hello again :lol:

    Did you ever get your theories of everything verified?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    Hello again :lol:

    Did you ever get your theories of everything verified?

    No not really, I do not think people understand me at times, most people say I am wrong and post back present information, not very objective.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Physics, I just do not get it, can somebody please start off with something very simple and explain the definition of physics?


    Secondly can somebody please explain the meaning and intent of science?
    What level is this? GCSE or a-level?

    Physics is the branch of natural science concerned with nature and the properties of matter and energy. Topics studied can include mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism and the inner structure of atoms

    Science is the study of the natural world around and seeks to reach quantitative conclusions about the physical world
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    What level is this? GCSE or a-level?

    Physics is the branch of natural science concerned with nature and the properties of matter and energy. Topics studied can include mechanics, heat, light and other radiation, sound, electricity, magnetism and the inner structure of atoms

    Science is the study of the natural world around and seeks to reach quantitative conclusions about the physical world
    It is not really any level , I am self learning, I am a self proclaimed student of science. Thanks for your well worded explanation.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    It is not really any level , I am self learning, I am a self proclaimed student of science. Thanks for your well worded explanation.
    Best of luck with it, Khan Academy is a good place to learn about science and it's free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Best of luck with it, Khan Academy is a good place to learn about science and it's free

    Thank you I have used Khan academy, I have been doing this for several years, I do not know where I am at with my studies to be honest, It's sort of a bit mixed up and more chaos than any specific order.
    I would like to think I could discuss any related topic, my problem is there seems few and far between facts to science and the branch of Physics.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    So to be a good scientist , one must be objective ?
    Well, I'm not a "good" scientist to have your answer but in science you cannot just decide to be objective or subjective. Whatever your thoughts and desires, you are dealing with reality. The way you think about problems and how you approach them might be influenced by your personal thoughts and beliefs but not the conclusions you make.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Absent Agent)
    Well, I'm not a "good" scientist to have your answer but in science you cannot just decide to be objective or subjective. Whatever your thoughts and desires, you are dealing with reality. The way you think about problems and how you approach them might be influenced by your personal thoughts and beliefs but not the conclusions you make.

    Interesting , but the conclusions we make are surely based on personal feelings rather than the objective of uninfluenced observation?

    Let me start a point and maybe you can help me to understand?

    Let us look at the space between your eyes and monitor that is filled with air.

    From an unbiased objective opinion that is not influenced by any thought , the air is invisible and the light passing through the transparent air is also invisible to my observation.
    The space is relatively ''gin clear'' and I can see this without belief or influenced by personal opinion.

    However if you was to suggest this space contains tiny little particles called Photons, that would be a belief and subjective unless there was factual proof of the existence of this particle in the form of observation.
    Without observation a Photon is a comparison to a ''Godly'' figure which also has no observation evidence.

    So when considering the reality, my gin clear space is more of a reality than Photons, because the observation of gin clear is entirely objective.

    Can you help me understand in which way the Photon exists other than theory?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Interesting , but the conclusions we make are surely based on personal feelings rather than the objective of uninfluenced observation?
    Unless everybody explaining the same experimental phenomena came to a different conclusion, which is not apparently the case, that's not true.

    Let me start a point and maybe you can help me to understand?

    Let us look at the space between your eyes and monitor that is filled with air.

    From an unbiased objective opinion that is not influenced by any thought , the air is invisible and the light passing through the transparent air is also invisible to my observation.
    The space is relatively ''gin clear'' and I can see this without belief or influenced by personal opinion.

    However if you was to suggest this space contains tiny little particles called Photons, that would be a belief and subjective unless there was factual proof of the existence of this particle in the form of observation.
    Without observation a Photon is a comparison to a ''Godly'' figure which also has no observation evidence.

    So when considering the reality, my gin clear space is more of a reality than Photons, because the observation of gin clear is entirely objective.

    Can you help me understand in which way the Photon exists other than theory?
    First, you are assuming that the naked eye provides us with the objective appearance of things. We also see the sun spinning around the earth but that doesn't mean that's really the case.

    And as for the photons, you should first consider what led to the conclusion that photons exist. Although no one has yet observed such a particle as photon (in fact, we would not be able to observe it as it exists in the form of a discrete packet of energy), assuming its existence allows us to explain the photoelectric and Compton effect. This leads us back to the idea of prediction. We predict that photons exist in order to account for the experimental observation following from it. You would only be correct if you could explain the photoelectric effect, or the Compton effect, without thinking of such particles as photons. Can you do that?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Ah well met! been too long
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Absent Agent)
    Unless everybody explaining the same experimental phenomena came to a different conclusion, which is not apparently the case, that's not true.



    First, you are assuming that the naked eye provides us with the objective appearance of things. We also see the sun spinning around the earth but that doesn't mean that's really the case.

    And as for the photons, you should first consider what led to the conclusion that photons exist. Although no one has yet observed such a particle as photon (in fact, we would not be able to observe it as it exists in the form of a discrete packet of energy), assuming its existence allows us to explain the photoelectric and Compton effect. This leads us back to the idea of prediction. We predict that photons exist in order to account for the experimental observation following from it. You would only be correct if you could explain the photoelectric effect, or the Compton effect, without thinking of such particles as photons. Can you do that?
    I presume the naked eye provides the rudiment of observation and this observation is the same for all sighted observers. A basis to build upon objective thinking. Like you admit nobody has ever observed a Photon and nobody probably ever will, why do you think this is? If we truly are objective , we should also consider they do not exist and there may be an alternative explanation that may even be a better explanation .
    The underlining problem is that the theories based on and around a Photon, such has the Photo-electrical effect, is based on something that is not 100% fact so therefore those theories also remain just theories and not fact.
    Words mean very little without observation,

    Can I explain the Photo-electrical effect? Maybe because I understand the ''convertual'' nature of electromagnetic radiation and that space allows ''light'' to permeate and that Kmax(m)=hf/S
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    I presume the naked eye provides the rudiment of observation and this observation is the same for all sighted observers. A basis to build upon objective thinking. Like you admit nobody has ever observed a Photon and nobody probably ever will, why do you think this is? If we truly are objective , we should also consider they do not exist and there may be an alternative explanation that may even be a better explanation .
    The underlining problem is that the theories based on and around a Photon, such has the Photo-electrical effect, is based on something that is not 100% fact so therefore those theories also remain just theories and not fact.
    Words mean very little without observation.
    In fact, we are trying to be as objective as possible when we make the conclusion that photons exist, for how reasonable is the denial of Photoelectric effect? Claiming that photons may not exist or there is a better explanation is just an excuse to refuse to pursue in the field of science.

    Also, Einstein's concept of quanta provides such satisfactory explanation for existence of photons that even the frontiers of physics embody the idea.

    Can I explain the Photo-electrical effect? Maybe because I understand the ''convertual'' nature of electromagnetic radiation and that space allows ''light'' to permeate and that Kmax(m)=hf/S
    That's not really accounting for the photoelectric effect. Here is a good source to start.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Absent Agent)
    Claiming that photons may not exist or there is a better explanation is just an excuse to refuse to pursue in the field of science.




    .
    No, claiming Photons exist when there is no actual proof they exist, is make believe and subjective and not science, it is ''religion'' and a belief they exist.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    No, claiming Photons exist when there is no actual proof they exist, is make believe and subjective and not science, it is ''religion'' and a belief they exist.
    You seem to be using the word 'proof' in a very narrow, literal sense of the word but in science demonstrating the predictive consequences of the existence of such particles as photons is as if providing direct experiential evidence for the existence of photons themselves. Also, the fact that you're sceptical just about the existence of photons without being concerned with phenomena such as photoelectric effect that otherwise may be inexplicable without reference to those particles clearly shows that you're not genuine in your arguments.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Physics, I just do not get it, can somebody please start off with something very simple and explain the definition of physics?


    Secondly can somebody please explain the meaning and intent of science?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEIn3T6nDAo
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: July 11, 2016
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.