Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MRLX69)
    Physics because it's closest to Maths...

    Who's read the latest edition of the New Scientist???? (this week's one).
    With the new particle accelerators, they think they can fire particles so fast that it twists time/space so much that it actually creates a new universe! Imagine this universe like a balloon, if you grab a bit of it, twist it around (with some air in it), and keep twisting it, you'll get to a point where the bit you're twisting snaps off. If none of the air can escape, you have two balloons, one big one (the original one) and one small one, the new mini universe. HOW COOL!

    But theit primary aim is to find the higg boson particle, the thingy that's responsible for gravity .

    C'mon! you can't beat creating a new universe! No other sciences will let you do that!


    Note: currently a lil tipsy, sorry for any spelling mistakes.
    what's it dated... ?
    i might have to buy it if it's still avalable...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MRLX69)
    But theit primary aim is to find the higg boson particle, the thingy that's responsible for gravity .
    Given how feeble gravity is as a force, I would be amazed if the graviton was experimentally proved any time soon!

    (Original post by MRLX69)
    C'mon! you can't beat creating a new universe! No other sciences will let you do that!
    Creating life would be just as exciting! And probably more complicated :p:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikk)
    Given how feeble gravity is as a force, I would be amazed if the graviton was experimentally proved any time soon!
    The higgs boson is responsible for mass. It is different to the graviton which causes gravity. The higgs boson should hopefully be found when LHC comes online.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Excellent, physics is in the lead.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pulse)
    Excellent, physics is in the lead.
    As if there was ever any doubt.

    P.S evryone who likes physics go and join the physics society. We need a larger army:rolleyes:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I would, but unfortunately im full up.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suneilr)
    The higgs boson is responsible for mass. It is different to the graviton which causes gravity. The higgs boson should hopefully be found when LHC comes online.
    Ok that that's it...I had read it recently but couldn't quite remembered what it was so assumed you were talking about gravitons. LHC is due online in a couple of years isn't it? Should be exciting as I believe there are quite a lot of theories that could potentially be proven experimentally by LHC.

    You'll have to forgive my limited knowledge of physics - I am just an interested onlooker that reads the occasional book If I had more lifetimes, I would have studied a physics degree as well.

    EDIT - I've just realised that I have been posting in this thread since it was first created (long time ago now), but have yet to register my vote!! *votes biology* :p:
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    interesting relection on the make up off TSR that physics is winning the poll and biology last when physics courses are (along when chemistry) under subscribed whilst biology is the more popular nationwide. will those voting for physics do a physics related degree?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alispam)
    interesting relection on the make up off TSR that physics is winning the poll and biology last when physics courses are (along when chemistry) under subscribed whilst biology is the more popular nationwide. will those voting for physics do a physics related degree?
    Hell yeah. Or possible natural science with a physical leaning. Physics rules
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nikk)
    Ok that that's it...I had read it recently but couldn't quite remembered what it was so assumed you were talking about gravitons. LHC is due online in a couple of years isn't it? Should be exciting as I believe there are quite a lot of theories that could potentially be proven experimentally by LHC.

    You'll have to forgive my limited knowledge of physics - I am just an interested onlooker that reads the occasional book If I had more lifetimes, I would have studied a physics degree as well.

    EDIT - I've just realised that I have been posting in this thread since it was first created (long time ago now), but have yet to register my vote!! *votes biology* :p:
    You haven't studied for a physics degree.:eek: Infidel scum:p: Hopefully LHC should be online next year. An exciting time for anone studying physics. Hopefully ill be starting my physics degree then.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by suneilr)
    The higgs boson is responsible for mass. It is different to the graviton which causes gravity. The higgs boson should hopefully be found when LHC comes online.
    Yeah, i meant mass
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've voted physics. I'm currently doing a physics degree- just finished the first year.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Physics is the study of the fundementals of the universe and math is its language.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I can't choose! Chemistry and physics are both cool
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Appanouki)
    Physics is the study of the fundementals of the universe and math is its language.
    Indeed, mathematics could be said to be more 'fundemental' than physics, in much the same way that people on this thread have argued that physics is more fundemental than biology and chemistry, and hence better. I don't think this arguement really stands up to close inspection though. The alphabet is more fundemental to Shakespeare's plays, but does that make the alphabet somehow 'better'? I don't think so. So, IMO, the arguement over which subject is the most fundemental doesn't really prove anything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well I believe that because it is more fundemental it is more pure and there is more to be learned... I would rather know the underlying principles of the universe in which I live than either the the way in which the creatures of our planet work or the way in which the atoms interact. I would rather know the rules that govern all of that especially in a field where so little is known and therefore there is so much room for creativity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think that maths is more pure than physics, but I would argue that it is in effect the language of the universe and I would prefer to use that language than simply learn it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Appanouki)
    Well I believe that because it is more fundemental it is more pure and there is more to be learned... I would rather know the underlying principles of the universe in which I live than either the the way in which the creatures of our planet work or the way in which the atoms interact. I would rather know the rules that govern all of that especially in a field where so little is known and therefore there is so much room for creativity.
    There is room for massive amounts of creativity in all fields of science. Physics is no more or less creative than Chemistry or Biology. The problem with studying theoretical physics is it is still a long way off linking up these fundamental forces with the rest of science and as such cannot claim dominance over them at this time. It is impossible to say that there is 'more' to be learned in physics than in chemistry or biology as you are quantifying an unquantifiable - we don't know all of what we don't know.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    There is room for massive amounts of creativity in all fields of science. Physics is no more or less creative than Chemistry or Biology. The problem with studying theoretical physics is it is still a long way off linking up these fundamental forces with the rest of science and as such cannot claim dominance over them at this time. It is impossible to say that there is 'more' to be learned in physics than in chemistry or biology as you are quantifying an unquantifiable - we don't know all of what we don't know.
    Agreed above :rolleyes: , physics is too theoretical or experimental, physicians may wish to explore over more, but usually just end up with an imaginary idea like the 'bug hole', not quite likely to have proved that exists.
    I would say biology is in many ways, not interesting, but you are bounded to have interest in it: it is life-related and could extend to psychology, behaviour, or even philosophy thinking.
    Great thought on the last sentence Chemistboy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I still believe we know less about physics than any other subject which is what makes it so interesting. and im not sure I agree about it being disconnected from the other sciences.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: September 6, 2010

University open days

  • University of Bradford
    All faculties Undergraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
  • Buckinghamshire New University
    All Faculties Postgraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
  • Heriot-Watt University
    All Schools Postgraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

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.