Talk:Physics

Edit on history

The following statement has been deleted:

"experimental physics had its debuts with experimentation concerning statics by medieval Muslim physicists like al-Biruni and Alhazen.""

Reason:

1) I have obtained and read through both these sources and neither of them make the claim of the above statement either explicitly or implicitly. All these sources do is claim that al-Biruni performed experiments in mechanics. In order to for one to claim that experimental physics had its debut with Muslim physicists like al-Biruni and Alhazen the source would have to explicitly make the claim, which none of these sources do.

2) Furthermore the claim in itself is ridiculous. Experimentation has existed in physics and all of science since man began building tools and other complex objects, how else could the pyramids, Colosseum, etc have been built without experimentation. Also Archimedes discovered the principle of the buoyancy and the lever through experimentation as provided by a translation of Archimedes work "On Floating Bodies", one can follow this link to get access: http://www.archive.org/stream/worksofarchimede00arch#page/260/mode/2up

Are we to assume all science and physics before Muslim physicists like al-Biruni and Alhazen was just pure guess work, and that Archimedes guessed the principle of buoyancy and lever (not to mention he provided a qualitative and quantitative description of these laws)

3) The sources listed here don't even mention alhazen on the pages listed, hence that in itself is already a misrepresentation of the sources

4)This claim is a throw back remnant of jagged_85 work which has since been banned for misrepresenting sources and flat out lying in order to pursue an agenda, follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85

If one can find scholarly sources that make the above claim then these claims can be reintroduced but not until sources that explicitly make the claim are found. Belief Action

The sentence "They proposed ideas verified by reason and observation, and many of their hypotheses proved successful in experiment;[15] for example, atomism was found to be correct approximately 2000 years after it was first proposed by Leucippus and his pupil Democritus.[16]" completely ignores the quantum revolution!Davidaedwards (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Davidaedwards

Philosophy section -- Mathematics as analytical

The philosophy section advocates an understanding of physics as synthetic and mathematics as analytical. The status of mathematics as analytical vs. synthetic is a core point of divergence in various philosophies of mathematics. Mathematics as synthetic is argued by numerous proponents, the most prolific being Immanuel Kant, as articulated in the introduction of the Critique of Pure Reason.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason#Synthetic_a_priori_judgments

More general

More generally than studying matter (because it also studies spacetime, together and separately).. Physics is the study of reality.. which is to say the thing wherein all existing things are in, including the universe, which is physics' name for the real form of all things, similar to how the word nature is used. Existence is similar but has different usage. -Inowen (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen: This is a collaborative space to discuss improvements to physics-related Wikipedia articles. If you wish to discuss physics in general, try https://www.physicsforums.com/. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I am discussing the article. -Inowen (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What article? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's me who was completely lost here for a moment. Ignore everything I just said. With apologies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen From the article: "In many ways, physics stems from ancient Greek philosophy." Your contribution appears to revisit it. What comes to mind is the thinking of Democritus. Might this be your point? -- 08:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

And 2500 years later, Feynman states it as "Matter is made of atoms" (see section 1-2) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis, the point is that physics is not just about "matter" but also equally important things like energy, and space, and time. So "reality" isn't a bad word to use, and it is well-enough used in the field (Google: physics+reality). "Matter" is sometimes overused and then misused to refer to any kind of constituent substance that isn't just atoms, so Feynman wanted to bind those two ideas together - of matter is atoms and atoms is matter. -Inowen (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Misuse of "Analytic" and "Synthetic"

In the section "Relation to Other Fields" and subsection "Prerequisites," the following is stated:

"It means physics is ultimately concerned with descriptions of the real world, while mathematics is concerned with abstract patterns, even beyond the real world. Thus physics statements are synthetic, while mathematical statements are analytic."

The second sentence does not follow from the first, as what is being delivered seems to be an a priori/a posteriori distinction instead of an analytic/synthetic one. Some, such as Kant in The Critique of Pure Reason, claim mathematically statements are actually synthetic, hence making the second statement disputed in of itself.

Thus, please change "synthetic" to "a posteriori" and "analytic" to "a priori." 2600:1700:B900:3E80:3147:607E:1B0C:1DA8 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence is problematic. "Synthetic" can also mean, to some readers, "made up". "Synthesis" might be a better word, but I would vote for just removing this sentence completely. Attic Salt (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The words 'synthetic' and 'analytic' are used in the sense of the Ancient Greeks, such as Pappus; synthetic in this sense means to use all the resources, the experience that you have at your disposal as in a synthetic proof, whereas analytic means to examine closely. (See George Polya, How to solve it : first analyze, then synthesize ). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

While I agree the Greek (and, possibly borrowing from the Greeks, Cartesian, see, e.g., Descartes' Discourse on Method) is a proper use of the terms, that does not seem to be the context of the above passage. The passage is discussing the nature of the knowledge or object of study, while the Greek use of the terms seems to refer to the process (e.g., as used in the Cartesian method). I would also contend that even if this passage is referring to the differing methods of knowledge, both mathematics and physics include various aspects of the synthetic and analytic processes. In summary, I still think changing the terms to "a priori" and "a posteriori" would be best, or, as Attic Salt suggests, simply removing the sentence entirely, since the paragraph reads fine without it. 2600:1700:B900:3E80:3147:607E:1B0C:1DA8 (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. As demonstrated above, there is dispute about what the terms mean and which terms are best for this passage. This change is therefore outside what a simple edit request can address and a consensus among interested editors will need to be demonstrated before this change is made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Um, isn't this conversation still on-going? I think it is useful to sound this out. Attic Salt (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Attic Salt:, exactly, which is why it does not fit into an edit request. There is clearly no current WP:CONSENSUS for the requested change so a new consensus will need to be created. This is usually achieved by discussions on talk pages. See the standard editing cycle or requests for comment pages for more information. In either event, this evident need for extended discussion means the simple "Please change X to Y cannot be done at this time. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)