Talk:Physics/wip

Physics Article Development - Introduction

This page is for discussion related to the development and improvement of the Physics article. As a result of a noticeable decrease in quality of the article it was decided to create a dedicated sub page where the entire contents could be reviewed and improved without the problems of working on a 'live' page which suffers from constant flux. Other editors have suggested that I act as a form of a secretary. The purpose of this is to add a structure to the process, setting up points for discussion, allowing discussion to take place, calling for consensus after an appropriate amount of time, helping to negotiate and reach consensus, then setting up another point for discussion. Editors who want to join this process are more than welcome - the more people we have involved in the process the more valuable the outcome.

The plan is for each area of the article to be discussed in turn. Once all areas have been discussed, and before the contents are copied across to the main article, a specific amount of time can be set by for A.O.B. to allow past decisions & consensus positions to be reviewed if editors feel strongly about something (and feel it wasn't given fair hearing the first time around - or if the editor wasn't around for the specific discussion the first time around).

Once the final version is completed then it can be copied across to the main article. At that point it can then be freely edited, and the wiki process will take over on this work. The quality may well decrease again, but at least there will be a consensus version to compare with, and editors can at that point bring discussion on the main talk page as to whether the changes are better than what was decided upon here, or worse. Hopefully the majority of the work done on this project will remain intact, but obviously the final version produced here should not be permanently held in place irrespective of changes made by other editors

The Key Points

To ensure that development progresses in an orderly manner there are a few key points that must be kept in mind:

• Consensus is the key rule by which this process lives on. Only through this method will we arrive at a result which is going to stand up to the test and scrutiny of time. Give and take is required by all.

• Editing of the WIP article itself should not take place until the specific change has been agreed upon by consensus on this page.

Edits to the Physics/wip page that do not comply should be reverted on sight, and the editor directed to this discussion. --MichaelMaggs 10:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Discussion should generally be held within the boundaries of the current designated area. For example, if the "Future directions" section is currently being discussed then posting a lot of views on the "History of Physics" section - unless relevant to the "future directions" - is discouraged. The AOB time at the end of the process can be used bring up matters that have already been discussed.

• Above and beyond Civility, a friendly and co-operative environment is encouraged. Ultimately we are all here voluntarily, and all just to try and construct a HQ encyclopedia - if folks start getting worked up then we just need to chillout. A negative environment is neither as constructive nor all that nice a place to work as a positive and friendly one. The use of smilies is encouraged. !

Thanks, SFC9394, 23 August 2006.

Framework

1. Pre-Implementation Discussion, - August 2006

2. Article Structure - Layout & Chapter Focus, - August, September 2006

3. §1 - Definition, - active

Current Discussion

3. §1 - Definition

The Definition - between 50 & 150/200 words long. This is the first text read by the majority of people reaching the article page. What should we be aiming to say? - what should we aim not to say? - from those two points we can work out what we are going to say. SFC9394 10:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually what we want, I suppose, is to define the lead paragraphs. They will of course include, but are not restricted to, a definition of physics --MichaelMaggs 12:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Statement defining the audience? Everyone? The eleven-year-old? College grads? --Ancheta Wis 17:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Everybody hopefully. First should come a definition that is easy to understand, and then one that is more rigorous. Krea 18:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No suggestions yet. This is proving difficult. How about looking at the text that's used on the current Physics page, and saying what we think is wrong with it. That might give us some pointers. The current text is:

Physics (from the Greek, φύσις (phúsis), "nature" and φυσική (phusiké), "knowledge of nature"), the most fundamental physical science, is concerned with the underlying principles of the natural world. Consequently, physics deals with the elementary constituents of the Universe — that is, all classes of matter and energy — and their interactions, as well as the analysis of systems which are best understood in terms of these fundamental principles. --MichaelMaggs 14:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Oooh, that's just asking for it!

1. What does "most fundamental physical science" mean? For one thing, taking the population as a whole, the word "fundamental" can be quite subjective. I think we should try to use as basic a set of concepts as possible, like talking about physics in terms of knowledge (which is itself a tricky subject).
2. The word "underlying" is making an implicit assumption about nature itself: that its laws are hidden from us. Now, for all we know, there is no evidence to suggest that this is the way it had to be and, conversely, no evidence for the contrary. We must ask ourselves if it is reasonable to assume a universe to exist in which this were not true. Therefore, is it reasonable to conclude that this statement is an observation of nature itself and thus should not be included in the definition?
3. I'm not sure that, "physics deals with the elementary constituents of the Universe," is a consequence of physics being "...concerned with the underlying principles of the natural world."

I could continue, but these complaints suffice to outline the point that I would like to make: I think that we must strive to formulate a definition that is as fundamental as possible. In other words, a definition that makes the least amount of assumptions about nature. For the sake of creating a constructive discussion, let me introduce the following definition of physics:

Physics is the body of statements that assert the manner in which nature truly behaves.

Now, I ask you: are you happy with this definition? I imagine that you will not be, but why? Is this not the most general definition we can make? Krea 17:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment here 00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC), Ancheta Wis

What 'the' body of statements is should be clarified. But I don't agree with the definition's perspective. Science is more than the product. Science is a certain method of study, and physics is a science concerned with a certain topic (matter and energy). "Physics is the science concerned with the discovery and understanding of the true and fundamental laws which govern matter [and energy]" is my suggestion. Directly after this, we should elaborate on the constraints (how it's different from other sciences - chemistry is about atoms, aren't they the same then? if we understand matter, we'll be able to know how people work too, right?) "Physics differs from... in that...", "While other sciences...". Then, on the variety of what physics encompasses: "The motion of galaxies and composition of atoms, gravity, light, and the nature of time and space are all in the domain of physics". The second paragraph could offer a brief history covering the most important achievements and some of the most important research going on today. –M^T 08:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "Physics is the study of (or maybe "search for") the mechanisms and behavior of the natural world." for an introductory sentence. Saying anything about fundamentals and how true something is somewhat conceited and not entirely accurate - in my experience, physics appears to be more of an attempt to quantify/predict how something will act, and from there the understanding of the laws governing those actions is derived. Since physical scientists have produced a number of theories in the past which were wrong and/or incomplete (for a variety of reasons, not always their fault), saying that physics is the "true" form of the art isn't exactly accurate. There's also an old joke about fundamental science I'm not going to repeat here, but saying physics is "fundamental" (while a decent descriptor IMO) is a nebulous and ultimately POV way of putting physicists on a pedestal over other scientists. As far as the intended age thing goes, I would venture any pre-college grad (training in physics, not in general) - it's unlikely anyone with a physics degree would just up and read the "physics" Wiki article and expect it to contain something at their level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virogtheconq (talk • contribs)

So how about the following operational definition of physics. It shows that we must search and do other work to understand the world, that our understanding does not come for free; that the more we know, the more we can hope to understand, and vice versa. --Ancheta Wis 23:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Physics is the search for the mechanisms and behavior of the natural world." [part of the above comment]

I disagree with these definitions. Physics doesn't search for behaviour, it tries to determine and understand what causes the observed behaviour. In my definition, "Physics is the science concerned with the discovery and understanding of the true and fundamental laws which govern matter [and energy]" "true" is perhaps redundant with "science", but fundamental is the proper word. We're not implying that physics is fundamental, we're implying that physics attempts to discover those underlying, fundamental laws from which emerge all of the complexity (and complex laws) around us. It's an important thing to note. I can think of no way to express that that isn't tinged with an implication that other matter/energy laws are based on physics - which is a sure truth, they are. If we had a way to state this without the implication, then great, but an accurate description should not be sacrificed for the sake of soothing other scientists because the occasional reader doesn't quite understand the difference between "fundamental" and "important". Note that I'm not at all a physicist - this isn't bias speaking. –M^T 00:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion M, especially since you can give a non-physicist's point of view, which is very welcome. Now, the fact that you are not a physicist is clear (it was definately clear when you mentioned it!) because your definition refers specifically to "matter and energy". In my opinion, these concepts should not be contained in the definition because it is no way known whether they are fundamental to the existence of physics. The definition should be as general as we can make it. Thus, intead of talking about searching for the behaviour of this or that, we should just say that we are searching for the behaviour of something, anything, which we do not wish to specify. When you say, "Physics doesn't search for behaviour, it tries to determine and understand what causes the observed behaviour," the thing that "causes behaviour" is itself behaviour! Furthermore, Let me expain why I don't agree with your definition:

Physics is the science concerned with the discovery and understanding of the true and fundamental laws which govern matter [and energy]."

1. Physics is indeed a science. But did it have to be? What do I mean? Well, what is science? Answer: A science is an application of the scientific method. So what? Well, to be a science, the thing itself must not be known - we have to make observations about it. Now, suppose that we already knew the laws of nature - there is no known reason why this should not be possible. Thus, if we did have this knowledge, physics would no longer be a science. Thus, the statement that physics is a science is not as general as it may be. The observation that physics is indeed a science is a particular of our universe (as far as anybody knows).
2. I've already mentioned that we should remove the words "matter" and "energy" from the definition, and replace them with unspecified entities under the generic name "nature", or something similar.

Thus, what are we left with?

Physics is the science concerned with the discovery and understanding of the fundamental laws which govern matter [and energy] nature."

Which is esentially what I first suggested. So, let me state it again (with some suggested changes):

Physics is the body of, or method of obtaining, statements that assert the manner in which nature truly behaves.

Krea 22:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Krea - I rather fear that in your eagerness to be as general as possible you are in danger of losing most if not all readers in metaphysical or philosophical niceties. You question, for example, whether physics has to be a science, and argue that in a hypothetical world in which we knew all the answers physics would no longer be such. You may be right, but in our own world we don't and it most certainly is. Since there's no question about it, I can't see any reason not to describe physics as a science.

We should, in my view, be quite comfortable in using the terms matter and energy. They are both commonly-understood expressions which help the uninitiated reader get an immediate sense of what this thing called physics is all about. Although there's no formally-agreed definition of physics, any more than there is of most sciences, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of physicists would use one or both of those terms if asked to describe physics in a nutshell. And how physicists describe their own field is most definitely of relevance. It goes without saying that non-physicists are most welcome here, and have already contributed significantly to the discussion, but it's hard to accept the implication in an earlier statement (not one of yours) that that a physicist's viewpoint would show 'bias'. Without the input of physicists an article entitled "Physics" is likely to be a poor thing indeed. We need both views.

You have suggested that the initial sentence of the lead para should read "Physics is the body of, or method of obtaining, statements that assert the manner in which nature truly behaves". But by avoiding words such as matter and energy, which are specific to physics, your definition covers almost any type of scientific reasearch. Research into the mating habits of King Penguins, for example, would seem a good example of "research into the manner in which nature truly behaves".

I suggest something along the following lines. As we are meant to be discussing all the lead paragraphs, not just the first sentence, I have made a proposal for the entire thing: --MichaelMaggs 12:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Krea, I enjoy the correctness of your definition, but I disagree with it. This section 16 of The Elements of Style presents my case. This isn't simply a manner of artistic style, but one of comprehension. "Science", "laws", and "matter and energy" are clearly understood by readers; what exactly is meant by "statements that assert the manner[…]" and "nature" is not so readily understood. The full coverage that your definition attempts to make is best reserved for the body of the article, or better yet, the reader's own common sense and experience. –M^T 21:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for lead paragraphs

Physics is the science concerned with the properties of matter and energy, and the relationships between them. It seeks to understand and describe the physical properties of the universe at the most fundamental level, normally by way of mathematical modelling of the behaviour of physical systems. Physics is therefore closely related to mathematics, which is the logical framework that allows for the precise formulation of these descriptions. The aim, however, is to go beyond describing physical phenomena, but rather to construct mathematical models or theories which can also predict how a physical system will behave. These predictions can then be tested experimentally to support or refute the theory.

Some theories of physics are believed to be common to all physical systems. These are often referred to as the laws of physics, although the word 'law' is a misnomer since even a law of physics could, in principle, be disproved by experiment. Other theories are more limited: they describe the behaviour of specific physical systems only, or are applicable only within a defined range.

Classical physics traditionally includes the fields of mechanics, optics, electricity, magnetism, acoustics and heat. The recently-discovered fields of general and special relativity are also within this category. Modern Physics is less well-defined, but is usually said to cover fields which rely on quantum theory, including quantum mechanics, atomic physics, nuclear physics, particle physics, solid state physics and condensed matter physics. This distinction is now of limited practical use, as quantum effects are now known 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 creating and working through the mathematical implications of systems of physical theories, even where experimental evidence of their validity may not be immediately available. Most theoretical physicists work on aspects of particle physics and similar fields.

--MichaelMaggs 12:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well-put. There is much to say of its merits, but I won't focus there as it won't get us far. Some things are best left unsaid. I'll edit it, revert, link the diff, and elaborate. –M^T 21:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Structure

Yes, striving for a general definition will indeed take you down philosophical and metaphysical roads! That's not altogether a bad thing though. I agree that my definition is one extreme; thus, we should have many definitions: one for everyday use, one general, one specific, etc. You have struck at the heart of the issue when you say that there is no formally-agreed definition: many people define what physics is and its bounds of working validity subjectively. In fact, you may argue that the mating habits of King Penguins is indeed physics! So, let's sort out each of these definitions in turn. I would like to keep the general definition of physics for the sake of pedantry and the "rigourous way". I would also add the "particular definition" - i.e. the one that says, "yes, physics is actually a science". In fact, I only gave you half of my definition: I was going to add the latter half later on (since nobody uses a practical definition that speaks of the true laws of nature - these are not known!). So, lets first decide the type of definitions. I suggest:

1. Lay, easily understood definition - for the casual reader to have a general understanding of the topic.
2. General definition - one that is "rigourous".
3. Specific, or particular definition - a more useful, working definition than the general one.

We can discuss your suggested lead paragraph in more detail bit-by-bit once we have a clearer direction of where we are going. Krea 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)