Talk:Physics

Archives
February 18, 2006

Discussion

supernatural?

Hello, there is a content dispute at Methodological naturalism that I've filed an article RFC for [1]

The original question is whether or not the scientific method is a natural method or a supernatural method of scientific investigation. One editor (Markus Schmaus) refuses to allow the scientific method be listed as a natural method unless a link can be provided to support the claim. I assume he is a proponent of Intelligent Design which pushes the view that ID is "scientific" even though it investigates supernatural causes such as how God must have creaeted life on earth. I assume it is this POV that is getting pushed, and Schmaus will not allow the scientific method be listed as an example of MN because then ID would not fit in the scientific method.

In an attempt to resolve the dispute until some sort of consensus was reached, I removed the mention of the Scientific Method as an example of methodological naturalism and instead inserted "astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics" are examples of methodological naturalism. Schmaus is now disputing that these are examples of MN and insists on a URL to prove that they are natural methods rather than supernatural methods of scientific investigation.

[2]

Since methodological naturalism is a minor article with only a few editors, the dispute has remained unresolved for lack of any sort of consensus. Please weigh in with your comments at the following links:

Scientific method is natural or supernatural

astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics are natural or supernatural methods

If you have links to support whether it is supernatural or natural, that would be greatly appreciated. FuelWagon 18:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

to add: distinction between physics and metaphysics

From the article as it stands now, one has the impression that physics is identical to natural philosophy, and that it effectively includes metaphysics. I don't think so, and a great number of students and even physicists don't even understand the difference. If I understand it well (and there may be even different "schools" using different definitions), then natural philosophy includes the underlying hypothetical models or explanations (metaphysics), while physics is (or should!) be only concerned with experimentally verifiable/falsifiable parts of theories - typically, the laws. If so, a theory of physics only includes the falsifiable parts. OK, this was just a sketch, someone please correct as needed and include this point. Harald88 20:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you specificy at what point the article gives the impression that physics is identical to natural philosophy? Karol 20:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Easy, the very first phrase already states that literally! "Physics [...] was called natural philosophy".

And furtheron no explanation is given about the (limited, "hard science") scope of physics. Harald88 21:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The first phrase does not end there; it continues to say that physics was called natural philosophy until the 19th century, which implies it is not called that now anymore. Karol 06:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Zzzz. -- CYD

What does that mean? (maybe slight vandalism? If no clarification, delete) Harald88 06:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

physics includes the underlying pictures a theory provides. That's what physical intuition is all about. String theory makes no predictions yet, but it is still part of physics. --MarSch 10:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In that case metaphysics would be part of physics, which is a contradiction in terms. What is not testable is considered to be philosophy or metaphysics, but not physics. BTW, there's also a slight difference between "physical" and "physics" Harald88 19:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it is possible to draw borderlines as sharply as you would like. Karol 19:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure. That is however, no excuse to wipe the issue under the carpet and allow for this encyclopdia to contradict itself in a ridiculous manner. Nobody has constructive suggestions?! Harald88 22:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The first sentence states clearly that physics is a science. This clearly distinguishes it from metaphysics, which is not a science. -- CYD

That's a bit vague, as also noticed below by Karol.

A model of physics (say, the atom before 1900) is considered to be part of metaphysics as long as no idea exists how it could be demonstrated to be a correct concept. Similarly, absolute space and time were the metaphysics in Newton's Principia on which he based the physics, and it all made up his natural philosophy.

Hey, my paragraph here above is perhaps a good starting point, for it sketches in a few lines the issues and distinctions. Suggestions for improvement are welcome of course, especially as I only read Newton and Popper on these things so I can imagine that there are aother POV's to mention. See also the sentence about predictions below. Harald88 22:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction, as probably most people. I do, however, have a comment on metaphysics. Metaphysics is usually regarded as part of philosophy, which is considered (in Wikipedia, for example) to be a type of science. The point being that the scientific method is not inherent to all sciences, but only the reigning methodology in natural sciences. In other words, science is not strictly synonymous with a field of study using the scientific method. Karol 12:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Is a llama a science? -- CYD

I don't get your point :) Karol 16:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The underlying picture of a theory is physics, precisely because it is an informal variant of that theory. The metaphysics only begins when such meaningless questions as "Is this really how things work?" are asked. --MarSch 10:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Meaningless? Not for philosophy! But what you seem to indicate is that:

Physics is about laws and meta-laws that lead to verifiable predictions.

And again, I didn't see that precision on the physics page, it must be added! Harald88 22:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Aside the question of its meaning, your latest addition to the intro is very sloppy. What is a meta-law, anyway? Karol 21:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

A sloppy correction to a misrepresentation is better than nothing, and I noticed that nothing was happening nor going to happen for the time being. A meta-law is for example the Principle of relativity - a law about laws. Harald88 21:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

OK the removal of natural philosphy altogether was an improvement, and this looks good now, thanks CYD Harald88 16:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

to add: distinction between physics and llamas

From the article as it stands now, one has the impression that physics is the same thing as llamas. Left uncorrected, this misrepresentation will undermine the foundation of our civilization, leading to the destruction of the world economy and the suffering of countless furry quadrupeds. I demand action! -- CYD

OK, now I get your point :) Karol 07:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

publication

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Top picture

Not sure if this is important or not, but many NASA "concept drawings" are not done by NASA but by outside contractors who know little or nothing about science. The concept drawing of a black hole at the top is an excellent example, as it does not take into account Gravitational redshift and bending of light due to General Relativity. Maybe someone can find a physically accurate image to represent physics? - JustinWick 23:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I just dropped by here to make the same point - I don't think some wacky, unsubstantiated 'concept' drawing is the best thing to have at the top of the page representing a science who's very foundation is steeped in the scientific method. If an impression of "cool" or "wow" is what is desired by the top image then I am sure that a picture of some real physics in action could be found, not some concept draft, which although beautiful, is steeped in artistic licence. I will have a browse about for a suitable picture over the next wee while and replace it if there is no protest in discussion. SFC9394 23:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally support you both. Karol 11:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it to a cropped version of the Image:Meissner_effect.jpg picture. The only other one which looked suitable was Image:PrismAndLight.jpg. If anyone has major problems with the change then they are welcome to raise any them here.SFC9394 21:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that people will understand PrismAndLight more than Meissner_effect. Brian Jason Drake 06:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair point - I mainly went for the SC one for the 'cool' effect. I have put the alternative version in my user space so both can be compared side by side. I will leave things as they are for a few days and see if any discussion is generated.SFC9394 23:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been more than a few days. The PrismAndLight picture looks like its of low quality. I don't think we should use it, but I still think people will understand it better. Brian Jason Drake 11:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying, and will keep an eye out for something more suitable (or if I get the time create something myself along the prism lines). SFC9394 14:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Before reading the discussion above, I am delighted with a Meissner effect picture to head the article. As I remember, that was my very favorite of the wonderful demonstrations at Cal Tech 's Student's Day. Much later, it helped me to understand why the matrix becomes singular, at low frequencies, in a electric field integral equation, boundary element method, electromagnetic field calculations of perfect electric conductors. (without separating the loops and stars in the discretization or including the loss in the conductor) David R. Ingham 03:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

After reading, even as as a top of the class 12th grader, I don't think I understood very much of the meissner effect right away. I did already know that changing electric and magnetic fields are linked, because I did simple induced current, like a Sonicare tooth brush, to get extra points by entering the science fair. I think the light and prism demonstration worked even better than the magnets and soft iron rivets for my daughter's kindergarten class. So maybe it depends on the level of reader. One thinks harder seeing something than seeing a picture. David R. Ingham 05:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Having finished high school in Western Australia and started uni, I don't understand any of David's first comment - are we a bit behind? We don't learn about vortex tubes either, but I think they do in the US. Brian Jason Drake 06:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I those cold war/Sputnik days, high-school physics was taken by less students, generally only those considering a career in science, engineering and so forth. The very serious chemistry course, as well at the most advanced mathematics available were considered prerequisites. However the fact that I had enough of a clue to keep the Meissner effect in my mind (as an image, not by name) until I could understand eddie currents was more likely related to the physics I had learned at home, that also made high-school physics such a party for me. Splitting sunlight with a prism is so colorful, that I would expect even small children to remember it, whenever they started to learn about light. I have just been thinking, while reading about standardizing physics education, that I hope it won't become too standard, because when two or more people (scientists or not) try to understand a problem they pool their knowledge. So education should be uniform enough to allow people to understand each-other but not so standard that everyone knows the same things. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a physicist who doesn't know about a prism separating light, tough he could figure it out in a few minutes of thinking. In Surely You Are Joking Mr. Feynman he says that he was so bored in one class that the teacher let him read a calculus book, and that gave him mathematical techniques that others didn't know. David R. Ingham 20:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Electron orbitals? What the hell...? This version has two pictures that I think most people can understand. Brian Jason Drake 03:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The previous consensus we had established above was wiped away by an anon who simply edited in a load of space pictures to the top of the article - that one was about the best of them (as it at least contains some fundamental relevancy to physics - the H orbitals being about the only ones that can be modelled properly using QM theory without needing a supercomputer). A generic picture of the earth tells us nothing about physics, and would seem to me to be completely useless as the main picture for the article. The HUDF pic (as it is now) is also near useless - it is just a black murky pic. If a crop of a section of it was taken at its native resolution (the full res. pic being available from here) then it would at least show something interesting to the viewer. I am currently searching about for some suitable spectrum pics. Ultimately I would always point out that the header picture has to both be aesthetically pleasing and relevant to the fundamental subject of physics - I can never support a random picture of the earth from space as filling both of those criterions. SFC9394 11:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, the anon has explained here what he had in mind, and maybe he has a point: instead of one picture, which cannot summarize all of physics, he put in three pictures covering the gamut of scale of subjects covered by physics: the cosmos, the earth, and the subatomic realm. That's not a bad idea.--Srleffler 12:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

While that may sit philosophically well I would still contest it is not the best pictorial representation of physics that can be produced. We want something that encapsulates what physics is, not just what the scale of it is. SFC9394 12:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures on the main page

The images of Hydrogen atom and that related to superconductivity seems to be not suitable for the main page of Physics. Physics is the science of entire nature. These pictures can find there on domains such as atomic physics and solid state physics etc. It will be better to put more suitable pictures in the main page. The images now present are too big and distroys the beauty of the home page of physics : Naveen Sankar 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The origins of physics

The part about the history of physics needs to be expanded to include contributions from Egypt, Persia, Arabia and so on. As it is now, it is just provincial. It is of course just another greek myth that philosophy and science has their origins in Greece.

Definitions

I said something to the effect that "The difference between physics and mathematics is that physics is ultimately concerned with descriptions of the material world, whereas mathematics is concerned with abstract patterns that need not have any bearing on it." to a woman who was in charge of the math lab curriculum for a school district. She said "I didn't realize I was an oxymoron." David R. Ingham 02:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Physical phenomena common to all material systems

"Some of the phenomena studied in physics, such as the conservation of energy, are common to all material systems. These are often referred to as laws of physics."

Which physical phenomena are not common to all material systems? Brian Jason Drake 08:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There are many physical phenomena that aren't physical laws, such as Superconductivity or Bose-Einstein condensation. These phenomena stem from physical laws but not all materials exhibit them and therefore they are not laws themselves. 163.1.146.202 00:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The article still states that some physical phenomena are not laws of physics, which if not read carefully, sounds like "some things in physics are not part of physics". Those sound like good examples. Brian Jason Drake 11:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to a popular usage, the best established things in physics are called "theories" not "laws". An exception might be conservation and symmetry laws. The reason that theories, in general, can be better established than laws is that they have more experimental predictions, when the mathematics is done, so they can be better verified. David R. Ingham 07:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

An example from another science is the "Theory of Evolution", without which, most of the rest of biology does not make sense. David R. Ingham 07:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

diagram for "fields of physics"

Classification of physics fields by types of effects needing to be accounted for

I am thinking of adding this diagram to the "Major fields of physics" section. David R. Ingham 07:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

One change it needs is to split classical mechanics into parts that deal with particles and rigid bodies, on the left, and parts that deal with fields and waves, on the right. The point is that it does not deal with the wave/particle duality in the center of the figure. David R. Ingham 22:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I have not continued to work on this. It does not adequatly show the basic difference between classical and quantum physics: Waves and particles are distinct entities in classical physics but properties of the same entities in quantum physics. David R. Ingham 05:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

General definition of physics

Shouldn't we define physics independently of any one representation of it's form? The definition as it stands is rather narrow; i.e., rather than saying:

"Physics...is the science of the natural world dealing with the fundamental constituents of the universe, the forces they exert on one another, and the results produced by these forces.",

I think we should say:

"Physics...is the study of the natural world in order to try and formulate laws that govern it's behaviour. One common way of doing this is through the concept of forces. Other, more abstract methods by which this is achieved is through energy considerations or Lagrangian functions."

It's not perfect, but I think it's a start. I, at some point (or somebody else) should try to explain how these classical ideas translate to the quantum domain (i.e., state vectors and operators, Wigner functions et.c.) for (relative) completeness, perhaps?

Krea 01:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think the correspondence principle is important enough to be included in the "physics" page. The classic problem in teaching physics is that logically classical physics should be explained in terms of quantum physics, but things are, for other reasons, presented in the opposite order.

I would define physics as the most fundamental understanding of nature, on it own terms, excluding important sciences that have found more specific guiding principles, such as literature, chemistry, social science and biology. On the other side it meets mathematics and phylosophy. David R. Ingham 05:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we all agree with the fundamentality of physical enquiry, the question remains as to how to express this clearly and coherently for non-physicists to understand. This task, I will invite you to engage, Dr. Ingham, as my senior (with criticisms, of course).

It is a shame that quantum mechanics itself mirrors physical teaching in that it too goes from classical to quantum quantities in the wrong direction! But, for the purposes of a general definition of physics, I think it would suffice to mention that quantum physics applies it's laws in a different manner to classical physics.

On a more heretical note, I have the aesthetic incling that mathematics is to physics, what Gaia was to Uranus. However, such issues require more contemplation on my part, so I'll expand on my somewhat esoteric analogy some other time...

Krea 10:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"ordinary"

"ordinary mater" In the fist paragraph seems superfluous. David R. Ingham 03:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

classification of Accelerator physics

Accelerator physics is not part of high energy physics, because it is mostly non-quantum. It is only related because it is used for thigh energy experiments. It is usually referred to as applied physics. Unlike nuclear instrumentation, it has grown to be a separate field. David R. Ingham 04:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"a consistent picture of the chemical behavior of matter, a complete theory of the electronic structure of the atom, as a byproduct of the quantum theory"

Wouldn't it have occurred to those workers that understanding atoms would lead to understanding chemistry? Wouldn't it have been their central goal? Modern science largely started when the alchemists discovered chemistry, and chemistry must have still been central to science, which could still be said. It would seem better to say that nuclear and condensed matter physics were byproducts.

Do we suppose that they were working so hard on optical spectroscopy just to invent fluorescent lights? David R. Ingham 06:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Physics Unit Converter link

I've linked my site to this article. www.conversionstation.com. My intent is to add value to the wiki, not to spam. Some of the areas are still under construction, but if you visit any part of the converter and would like me to add some units, please let me know by posting to mytalk. Thanks.

The only other ".com" link I see there is to an on-line encyclopedia of physics and I suppose that "wolfram" must be the familiar software supplier and publisher. David R. Ingham 21:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

engineering, applied mathematics

engineering

I just read that the reason that more high-school students are taking physics has to do with technology, so maybe "engineering" should be mentioned sooner. It is probably the place where the most physics is used.

How about: "Whether worked out by physicists or by engineers, the main natural science basis of engineering is usually referred to as physics." Electrical engineers I have worked with and read, usually use the word "physics" to refer to the explanation of how devices work, in terms of fields and waves. Much of engineering consists of bringing together requirements, experience and physics, sometimes with the help of mathematics that may not be identified as "physics". Computer engineering may not use the word physics much, nor do I recall its use to describe the internal workings of digital signal processing. These seem so abstracted from the laws of nature that they interface directly with mathematics, instead, but they can still be described as scientific. (An engineering professor told me that he attributed the fact that the cost of large computers is dominated by their bus structure to the fact that computer engineers do not study electromagnetic propagation any more.) David R. Ingham 23:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

applied mathematics

Should "relevant parts of applied mathematics" be included with "mathematical physics" after "large area of research intermediate between physics and mathematics, known as ", in the introduction? David R. Ingham 21:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Witten Is To Be Added

Since Witten proposed M-Theory,which is mentioned in the article, he is to be added. Witten Is God 05:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Four points:

1. The word M-Theory is linked to the article on M-Theory, where Witten is mentioned, there is no divine right for him to be mentioned in the Physics article *especially* since an article on M-Theory exists.
2. There is absolutely no need for a picture of him to be anywhere in the article.
3. You edited in your rejected content 1 minute after posting this talk piece - that is not how the system works. Consensus must be reached here before anything contentious gets moved into the article. If you want your rejected content to be included then you are going to have to convince other editors that what you are adding is valid, an argument that has nothing more than "he is to be added" is going to convince nobody.
4. You have broken a score of rules already (3RR, Sockpuppetry and POV username to name but three) and you are being given every chance to follow the rules. So I will state with 100% clarity, Do Not edit back in your rejected content without consensus being reached first on this talk page, if you do then it will likely be construed as purposeful vandalism and you will end up getting blocked. SFC9394 12:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Unit thomson

Any physicists here use the unit thomson (Th)?? Do you consider it to be an accepted unit?? Is it commonly used in physics?

I have been unable to find any other reference to such a unit. I therefore guess the answer to all three questions is "no". Brian Jason Drake 11:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is this guy over at mass-to-charge ratio who is strongly advocating it's usage and saying that it is common and consistent with physics and giving way too much space to it. It is only used in mass spectrometry and only by a few individuals (who made it up) and the prevailing notation is the m/z notation which is equally a misnomer (they both are the mass (in Da aka amu) divided by the number of elemetary charges) but m/z is the IUPAC accepted notation in mass spectrometry. There needs to be a separation of the two usages and way less advocacy of Th. Please help.--134.9.228.11 18:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

We are approaching moving the bulk of the mass spectrometry part of the Mass-to-charge ratio article elsewhere. The remaining will be physics. In all likelihood there will be an out of control advocate left in what will remain an exclusively physics article. Just giving you guys a heads up. --Nick Y. 18:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Copying from Encarta

I can't see that it would be a copyright violation if it was indicated as being a quote. However, such a large quote in the intro is probably not good. Brian Jason Drake 02:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That was pretty much my reason for removing it both times.

1. While a source was given, nothing was inside quotation marks - so what and where was copied from encarta was difficult to define (without having to search for it yourself).
2. We can't just start block quoting from other sources to create content here - quoting from copyrighted sources should only be used to demonstrate something that cannot be expressed any other way - as a piece of evidence to support a supposition or some such - the opening lines of this article don't desperately need encarta to support it else they would fall down - thus it is in there for no real reason. I think of quoting copyrighted text as the equivalent of image "fair use" - ie. you only use it when there is no other option - not all over the place just for the sake of it.
3. Block quoting of definitions for article introductions (especially articles that aspire to featured status) reflects very badly on WP - it suggests we can't even come up with anything original ourselves.SFC9394 11:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative definitions?

Matter? Energy? Haven't they been the same thing since Einstein? On the information article it says that there is a growing view in physics that the world is made of information. None of this is evident in the intro. Brian Jason Drake 06:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, matter and energy can be considered to be equivalent - its just that if we replaced the word "matter" with "energy" all the time, a hell of a lot of people would get confused. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the world is "made" of information: certainly, information is a key property that objects possess (like energy, charge etc.) Anyway, concerning the intro/definition of physics, I've made some massive changes... Krea 01:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

We obtain information from our five(?) senses and use this to construct a (normally) pretty accurate picture of the world. But it is not correct - it is only our perception of the world. So it's just information.
I'm not an expert on this topic, but it is in the other article, so it might be worth looking into. Brian Jason Drake 03:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Careful not to mix the meanings of the word "information". So, let me instead temporarily call "physical information" "communica". Communica enters physics in the sense that objects cannot transfer communica faster than the speed of light (according to one of the postulates of Special Relativity).

"Information", in the sense that you used above, is merely uncertainty in how we interpret the world. If conscious entities were not to exist in the Universe, information would not exist, but communica still would (ignoring quantum mechanical interpretations of measurement and existence).

Krea 13:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Change to the definition of Physics

The old start to this article was horrendous: how can a definition of physics include the observations made by it? Anyway, I've changed it and put it straight into the article in order to get some attention: please add any comments about what you disagree with or would like to get put in. Krea 01:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Agreed, the old start was horrendous!
2. We probably should try to make the definition fully understandable by the average person, and I think that means no mention of entropy (I'm a first year physics student at uni and it hasn't appeared in my studies yet, I only know about it from extra reading).
3. "To clear any ambiguity..." But the next paragraph seems to introduce the possiblity/probability/certainty of ambiguity - how can there be no ambiguity when there is this circular logic?
4. How is physics different from other sciences?
5. In cosmology, for instance, we have noticed that the galaxies seem to be moving apart. We have (as far as I'm aware) no idea why (at least no-one can agree). This doesn't seem to be a study of physical objects interacting with each other. Brian Jason Drake 03:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

There will always be aproblem in making it fully understandable, but I agree that we should at least try. I also agree that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is probably not suited to the opening gambit. The start should be fleshed out with another easily understood example or two (but I'd still like to keep 2nd law of Thermo just because it's such a famous statement about nature). The examples should cover some broad topics and refracation is the only other "easy" principle I can think of. Maybe there should be a list of people's suggestions...

I wanted to clear any ambiguity in the meanings of the words, rather than on any ensuing difficulties in circular definitions, so I'll change "To clear any ambiguity..." to "Whereby...".

I have a problem with splitting science into Physics/Chemisty/Biology because such a segmentation is too naive. I am neither a chemist nor a biologist, but I would imagine that the definitions of their disciplines would be equal to physics' except that they would add on: "...applied to the bahaviour of objects that are defined to be alive" or something similar. In fact, these three broad disciplines have only separated in the modern era (post renaissance). My point is that this is a topic that would probably need its own section. I can't do it because I don't yet have the time, but if anybody wants a go...

Your last point is a good observation: you could regard the Universe as being a physical object because other objects must interact with it in some way, and thus my definition is still valid. Let me propose a thought experiment: Let us propose that it is possible that only you and the Universe exist (nothing else that is neither "you" nor the "Universe" can be infered to exist by "you"). Now, would you be able to infer the existence of the Universe? By observation, can you conclude that there is something else that is not "you", because you are able to interact with it (by seeing it, or hearing it etc.) in some way. If you are in any way able to interact with it (even if it is a very limited interaction, even if you will never be able to know how it interacts with "you", or even if you will never be able to apply laws to its behaviour), it will be a "physical object".

I may be wrong, but it don't yet see why...

Krea 12:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the reason why I think the old definition is poor: a list of current theorems and conjectures is fine to put in a physics article, but it cannot be included in a definition of the subject because that definition must still be valid when or if such theorems are superceeded (especially in an article that seeks publication quality). As such, how can we say "physics...deals with the fundamental constituents of the Universe, the forces they exert on one another, and the results of these forces", without making clear that that is what physics CURRENTLY regards as being true. You can fairly question the clarity of my definition, but beware replacing it with something that is wholly misleading and not a definition of the discipline. I also doubt whether you will find a definition that is both clear and accurate: that is why I included a clearer "definition" at the start, and a more accurate one that followed. Krea 17:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• My thoughts (since it now seems we have anon IP's reverting all over the shop without a care). The two versions I am comparing are the original and the modified for reference. Firstly, from a MOS point of view the modified is in need of changes, line breaks should not be used at the top of an article like that - indeed line breaks are to be sparingly used anywhere in the article, so they need removed. Secondly, two of the pictures in the modified contain only very tenuous links to the article subject. Pictures at the top of an article should be used to exemplify the subject, not just have some sort of roundabout or philosophical link. There was discussion on the header picture further up this talk page, and I am disappointed that an anon IP just went in and replaced the consensus with 4 pics without any form of discussion. That being said, one of those 4 pics is actually useful (the H levels), the other three (including 1 of the space shuttle) were less useful. A picture of the earth tells the reader nothing about physics - the caption completely fails as well (why should it matter if it was taken from Apollo 17? What does that tell us about physics?). The HUDF is a little more linked, but still far more suitable for an Astro or cosmology page than as an all encompassing picture for an entire science. At the moment 2 of the 3 pics represent a "space science" when that is only one small part of Physics. I am happy to go with the H levels - that is at least something that is fundamental to all areas of the subject.

As for the wording, I like some of the modified version, and I dislike some of it. I will bullet point my thoughts for easier reference:

• 1. The modified is too long - the intro before the TOC is supposed to be a short definition of what the article subject is and why it matters - quoting Aristotle with discussion before we have even had the contents is just confusing - quite a bit needs moved from the modified version into the Introduction section. It is useful info; it is just not in the right place.

• 2. I would have the modified version para "In everyday terms, physics is the..." added to the original opening - it is a useful piece of text that tells the end reader what physics is about in plain terms, which is something the original fails to do, as it gets bogged down in physics speak: "it relates to the laws of symmetry and conservation, such as those pertaining to energy,".

• 3. The line in the modified version "Physics is the study of matter and energy and the interactions between them." at the beginning of the introduction section is completely out of place. It reads more like a definition, and def.s should be in the opening para, not at the start of a section. The reader is expecting flowing sentence structures when reading the main body, not stalky definitions.

• 4. I object to the modified version line "However, after over two millennia, nature is still not well understood" - that is painting a very off centre picture - to imply that we know as much (or as little) as we did 2,000 years ago is not really sensible. In reference to not having a grand unified theory to define everything under 1 equation then it is fair to say - but the current things that "don't fit" in Physics do so at a quantum level - at a macro level nature is incredibly well understood compared to 2,000 years ago. So that para needs some work done on it.

• 5. I object to the modified version para starting "At the most fundamental level currently understood, we can naively describe nature to exist of..." - Naively? Unless somebody knows something more than any of the other physicists in the world then the current models can in no way be described as naive. For something to be naive there has to be a greater knowledge already in existence which the person does not know about. There is no greater knowledge already in existence - thus the statement is just misleading. Whether the current theories are completely wrong or not is a different question - but they can not be described as naive, because no other verifiable theories exist which fit the available evidence better than what we currently have.

I have created a version which addresses my comments above - discussion on it is welcomed. Above all else, can the anon's who keep reverting without discussion please stop. Until consensus is reached here the version that is up should be left as it was the previous (i.e. for over 6 months) consensus situation - revert wars help nobody. Thanks, --SFC9394 11:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I'll address the points SFC9394 made:

• 1) Granted, the structure is a bit sloppy. Maybe it would be better if we just had a section title "definition" and then the introduction? This should hopefully make things a lot clearer for readers/editors.

• 2) When I first made the new definition, the line, "In everyday terms, physics is the...", came right at the begining because it gave the casual/inexperienced reader a general idea of what physics is about. We should maybe add a few more, easily understandable, theorems here (refraction maybe?).

• 3) The sentance, "Physics is the study of matter and energy and the interactions between them", is not mine and I don't like it because physics is not, in general, the study of, "matter and energy and the interactions between them". I also don't like the way energy is being singled out as the all important principle of physics: there are many other fundamental properties that a system may posses - not just energy.

• 4) I accept that the line, "However, after over two millennia, nature is still not well understood", is very misleading: I wanted to convey the idea that whilst physics has made profound insights into how nature behaves, many fundamental problems still remain (e.g., the electomagnetic energy density of a point charge). In addition, this should probably go into the introduction.

• 5) I also accept that the line, "At the most fundamental level currently understood, we can naively describe nature to exist of...", is also misleading: I wanted the word naive to adjective the brief description, not the theories themselves (i.e. I was calling the description naive, not the theories).

Ignoring clarity and structure, I still think the new definition is better than the current one because of one very important point (read this very carefully):

We must assume that "fundamental constituents of the Universe" and "forces" exist in order for the current definition to hold. It may seem obvious that they do, and indeed they surely must exist; but physics, in general, DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM TO (I cannot stress this enough). Physics takes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for granted: nothing can be assumed to "exist" before it is observed to "exist". Now, you may object that something must exist because otherwise physics itself would not exist. Here, you may be correct. But the fact is that nobody knows for sure. Therefore, let us be prude and not assume existence itself must "exist". (I apologise for the capitalisation, but I felt that this point was not coming across to people).

So, after the lay definition, I originally said:

However, a more formal and abstract definition would be that physics is merely the description of, or the desire to acquire knowledge of how physical objects interact. The definition of physics makes no statements at all about what is observed or what we expect to see.

Whereby "interaction" is understood to mean the influence of one "physical object" on another, and "physical objects" are objects that are observed to interact with other such "physical objects".

Note that there appears to be a circular logic to the definitions of "interaction" and "physical objects". This is unavoidable because of our current lack of complete knowledge of physics: we have no inherent understanding of what defines an "interaction" or what it takes to be a "physical object". Therefore, it is not possible to describe what an "interaction" is, or a "physical object" is without the other because neither yet has any intrinsic meaning (if indeed it ever will have). All we can do is to observe what objects seem to influence others, and therefore what interactions exist.

This, I contend, should round-off the definition and lead to the introduction. Also, "specifics" (through the predictions of the Standard Model about fermionic and bosonic matter and interactions etc.) should start in the introduction. Krea 19:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've re-thought my definition and here it is:

In everyday terms, physics is the science of the world around us that attempts to describe how objects behave under different situations. As a simple example, physics tells us that objects at rest like to remain at rest (Newton's First Law of Motion), or that all known processes increase the total entropy of the system and its surroundings (the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

However, a more formal definition would be that physics is merely the description of, or the desire to acquire knowledge of, how physical objects interact, if indeed, they do so. The word "interaction" is understood to mean the influence of one "physical object" on another such "physical object"; and "physical objects" are objects that have been observed to have "interacted" in some way with other such "physical objects".

Note that there appears to be a circular definition between the terms "interaction" and "physical objects". This leads to a very important point about physics: that physical knowledge is otained only by observation. Physical inquiry can make astute predictions about nature; but, it is currently believed, there does not exist and there has never existed any theorem that knowingly describes the true nature of the physical world. That is, there exists no theorem that says "this is how nature really behaves": all that can be said is that "this is how we believe nature behaves from what has currently been observed". Therefore, it is not currently possible to give any intrinsic meaning to the words "interaction" or "physical objects" that is independent of the other. The definition can also be seen to have made no predictions about nature: it does not say what form the "interactions" take, or what the "physical objects" are.

It should be noted, that there does exist one subtle non-trivial axiom that is implied by physics: that entities that physically argue are assumed not to have knowledge of how natue actually behaves for what is being considered. This can be seen to truly be an axiom as it is required in order for physical enquiry to be conducted, and there is no reason to assume that such knowledge should not be available to the entities in question.

I'm not arrogant enough to assume that this is perfect, or indeed even wholly correct, so objections are welcome (I imagine the "axiom" part will be a bit contentious). Krea 23:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also made an alternative introduction: objections (of which there probably will be many since introductions are largely individual preference) welcome here too:

Physics, as an ideal, has probably existed since man first questioned the nature of the world around him. However, although many great thinkers in antiquity questioned the world they lived in, it is generally regarded among physical historians that the birth of physics in a guise that resembles what we currently recognise as physics probably began with Aristotle. Over the two millenia since then, through defining periods such as the Renaissance and the Scientific Enlightenment, physics has evolved into the vast subject that has proved to be extraordinarily successful in understanding, and predicting how nature behaves.

As it currently stands, physics has formulated theories on the behaviour of nature over both small and large scales, involving most objects that exist, or have been created, which physicists can directly observe. More specifically, physics has created two influential theories that broadly explain the observations seen in the micro- and macroscopic worlds: the Standard Model, and General Relativity respectively.

The Standard model is a general framework that describes the micro, or "quantum" world. It is from this framework that physicists can define "particles" (either fermionic, or bosonic), that posses properties (such as energy, momentum, spin etc.) that interact with each other (through the electroweak, and strong interactions). However, the Standard model does not currently incorporate another fundamental interaction that is observed to exist: Gravity. The most complete description that physicists have of Gravity is called General Relativity, which is generally accepted to break down at quantum scales, and is thusly called a description of the "macroscopic" world.

Such a classification, however, is too naive: neither the Standard Model nor General Relativity are poweful enough to describe all of the phenomena seen far from the domain of the quantum world. Therefore, there still exist many topics within physics that still exist outside these two descriptions. As such, it can still be possible to, and indeed useful to, break physics into several broad topics: Quantum Mechanics, Electromagnetism, Classical Mechanics, Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics, Relativity, and Particle Physics. Note that this is just one way to partition physics and there exists much overlap between these broad topics. Imdeed, physics can also be, and often is, split into two broad disciplines: Theoretical, and Experimental Physics. This distinction is more defined nowadays than it previously was since physics has now generally become too large a subject for most physicists too be able to be proficient in both. In practise, however, some subjects still require good grounding in both. Additionally, mathematical physics is sometimes regarded as being separate from theoretical physics; however, the distiction is not always too clear when differentiating between theorists, and is more pronounced when applied to the output of a particular theorist.

With respect to science in general, physics is usually partnered with Chemistry and Biology to form the "hard sciences", as opposed to the "soft sciences", such as Sociology, Anthroplogy, and Economics, among others. Even this distinction within the "hard" sciences is not always clear-cut though, and the disciplines have together engendered relatively new topics that straddle the progenitor subjects, such as physical chemistry, biochemistry, and biophysics. It is also instructive to note that physics was known as natural philosophy until the modern era, and physics can still be regarded as the philosophy of nature: but, it is now more stringently controlled through the scientific method than it probably was pre-Renaissance.

Concerning the description of physics, it is almost entirely descibed through mathematics. That is, there appears to exist some relationship between physics and the objects of arithmetic and their operations. It is not currently known how deep this connection is and many professional physicists have their own views on the matter.

"How can it be that mathematics, being after all product of human thought which is independent of experience , is so admirably appropriate to the objects of realtiy?" -Albert Einstein.

Although physics has been very successful, there still exist numerous problems that have evaded our understanding. Whilst this includes new observations that defy our old understanding of nature, such as the implications of neutrino oscillations in the Standard Model; or the acceleration of the Universe requiring modifications, or even a completely new description, of Gravitation, there exist fundamental problems to theories that have been known for some time, or revealed because of newer theories, such as the energy density of the electric field of a point charge, or the apparent violation of locality due to Quantum Mechanics respectively. Therefore, physics is still a very dynamical subject that requires much more work to be done in order to accomplish the feat that most theoretical physicists believe is possible: the unification of all physical phenomena into one all-encompasing description.

Krea 02:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Internal links added by Haisch

It seems that Bernard Haisch added links to two articles concerning highly controversial topics in which he is a direct participant, and which unfortunately he has also edited himself as Haisch (talk · contribs) and apparently also as the pltn13.pacbell.net anon. See also

• Stochastic electrodynamics
• Zero-point energy
• Vacuum energy
• Polarizable vacuum

It seems that Haisch has added citations of his recent book to many articles, such as Religion. ---CH 10:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Template Deletion: Physics Series

This template provides easy access to all branches of Physics. Since Physics is a very very wide subject, such a template is very necessary. The comments that put on the template causes its deletion from many pages by new editors. There is no need of much debate on this issue. If anything wrong can be found in this template, it can be corrected. In my opinion, the classification provided in this template is easy and very useful.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.88.236.202 (talk • contribs) .

Discussion of the deletion is going on at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Physics Series. That is the appropriate place to discuss this.--Srleffler 11:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Relativity in Sidebar

In the modern physics section of the sidebar, it list relativistic mechanics, which links to the special relativity article. General relativity is not represented in the modern physics section of the sidebar. Perhaps a link to general relativity should be added.Alex Klotz 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is one of many problems with the way that sidebar categorizes subjects within physics. The sidebar as a whole is being considered for deletion for other reasons. If the decision is to keep it, it may end up moving to the bottom of the article and will certainly end up being edited and reorganized to better describe the subjects within the field of physics.--Srleffler 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Archimedes in History of Physics

I noticed the picture of Atistotle to Hawiking in the history section of physics. But where is our Archimedes..? Editors must include this also. 61.1.232.233 08:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

physics intro

I've undone a recent reversion and here's why.

The old intro had the following problems:

• "the science of Nature" is vague
• "from the quarks to the cosmos" is out of style for an encyclopedia
• "Consequently" is stylistically poor
• "treats of" is ungrammatical

[No, "treats of" is long established as perfectly sound usage, especially in a formal, encyclopedic context like this. Noetica 10:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)]

After some investigation, I'll admit that you're right that the construction has precedent (though I'm curious, can you point me to an occurrence in the last 10 years?). Nonetheless, the paragraph is still poorly written. [posted by Markan]

Look here (2005):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/

or here in Wikipedia;

or here:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0888/manifesto/dudman.htm

et passim. Noetica 12:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• "the results produced by these forces" is vague
• The third sentence is extremely vague and characterizes modern physics in a way that does not get at its essence

All of this is unprofessional.

The new intro is not perfect, but it is much better in form and content than the old one. If you can improve it, please do so, but please do not do a blanket revert to a weaker version. Markan 22:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Unprofessional? It was written by a Nobel laureate. The second sentence elaborates on Nature, so how is it vague? The introduction is based on Encarta, an encyclopedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.224.247.234 (talk • contribs) .

It's vague because "nature" is too far-reaching a term; most sciences can be said to study nature. If this paragraph was actually written by a Nobel laureate, show me a source. Even if it was, I doubt he or she meant it to begin an encyclopedia article. And if by "based on Encarta" you mean "copied from Encarta," I can see that. All that means is that Encarta's paragraph is poor too. Finally, please sign your comments. Markan 22:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If the intro the anon is pushing was "written by a Nobel laureate", then it is certainly not acceptable here due to copyright restrictions, unless the anonymous editor is that Nobel laureate. Besides that, though, being a Nobel laureate in physics does not necessarily make one a good writer. Personally, I don't like the statement that "Physics...is the science of Nature". Like Markan, I feel it is too vague. The other version's lead-off sentence "Physics...is the science concerned with the fundamental laws of nature" is much better. Physics is much more about the laws governing Nature, than it is about Nature itself. Other sciences cover empirical description of what is found in Nature. Physics focuses more on the fundamentals underlying what is observed.--Srleffler 21:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Markan and Srleffler. Etymologically, historically, and in actual practice physics is well characterised as the science of nature. Perhaps the real objection to this is that it sounds too neat and easy! I don't see how that could be a serious problem, myself. On the other hand, if it is objected that many sciences address nature, not just physics, then the proper thing to analyse next is whether those other sciences belong within physics (and perhaps are reducible to physics), or not − and if not, why not. I say the definition in terms of nature should stand. Noetica 10:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the accuracy of "physics the science of nature," can you explain why you think it is a better lead sentence than "physics is the science concerned with the fundamental laws of nature"? That is the issue at hand. Markan 12:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

While not thinking that it is the best possible sentence to characterise physics, I prefer it because there is more to physics than laws. There is also the ontological question: what entities are there, that the laws of physics are about. Noetica 12:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because there is more to physics than laws doesn't make the characterization incorrect. By contrast, it is incorrect to say that physics is the science of nature, because there is no single science of nature. Besides, the ontological question, insofar as it is physics and not philosophy, arises only as a byproduct of the effort to understand the behavior of nature. In any case, it seems to me that your preferred version doesn't make any reference to this ontological question either. If you can find a way to do so without awkward phrasing, go for it. Markan 05:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The question you posed for me was not whether I thought either characterisation was "incorrect". You wanted me to explain why I preferred one to the other, and I did explain. For the record, I do not think that either characterisation is clearly incorrect. You say: "it is incorrect to say that physics is the science of nature, because there is no single science of nature". But that is by no means established.

Biology, chemistry, and physics are separate sciences of nature, by conventional definition. Regardless of your views on how apt that (purely arbitrary) convention is, it is the role of an encyclopedia to abide by it. Markan 06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me check that I've got this right: 1) you think there is a settled class of conventional definitions; 2) we should be content to replicate that settled class of conventional definitions, in all our editing here (and therefore slavishly follow other works of reference, inheriting their peccadillos and their frank failures); and 3) "physics is the science of nature" is not a member of that eternally privileged class, but "physics is the science concerned with the fundamental laws of nature" is. Have I got it right? But then, if its laws alone are what characterise a science, and mark its scope, I suppose you must think this is a bad definition: "zoology is the science of animals"; and you must think this is a good one: "zoology is the science concerned with the laws governing the animal part of the world". Is that right (or near enough to right)? Well, it would exclude the ontology of zoology, so it would exclude descriptive taxonomy. It would not tell us what animals there are! Some zoology that is. Still, have it your way... Noetica 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the answer to #2 is yes, absolutely. By policy, in fact. Wikipedia articles must slavishly follow what has been published elsewhere, and may not invent new definitions for things. This is a fundamental issue, that goes to the core of what Wikipedia is. Read the policy if you want to know more about this.--Srleffler 16:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well pointed out, Srleffler. But in this case, of course, we cannot slavishly follow a well-established precedent, because there is no single unchallenged precedent. I have quoted no less a philosopher than W.V.O. Quine to support the simpler definition. Why should he not slavishly be followed, by Wiki principles? It is not prohibited original research to find what such authorities have said, and to weigh this against other authorities' pronunciamentos. That's why we have discussion, I had thought. Noetica 23:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have suggested, a proper question to consider at this definitional and metatheoretical stage is how physics and the "special" sciences (by which I mean chemistry, biology, meteorology, etc.) are related. One respectable view is that the special sciences are ideally to be thought of as branches of physics. On that view, physics is indeed the science of nature (in accord with etymology and historical development). Our commonplace distinctions between so-called physics and the allegedly separate "sciences of nature" are then to be thought arbitrary and merely convenient. Quine has this to say: "If the physicist suspected there was any event that did not consist in a redistribution of the elementary states allowed for by his physical theory, he would seek a way of supplementing his theory. Full coverage in this sense is the very business of physics, and only of physics" (Theories and things, 1981, p. 99). In other words, physics alone among the sciences can reasonably hope to explain all the workings of the world; and if there are chemical, biological, and other facts about the world, they had therefore better amount in the end to physical facts – or at least be in some respectable and robust sense reducible to physical facts. On such grounds we may reasonably say that physics is the science of nature.

All of this is irrelevant in light of my comment above. Markan 06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If those comments had hit the mark, then this might be so. But they do not, as I argue above. Noetica 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the ontological question, I'm glad you have distinguished physics and philosophy: but at this broad definitional level, the distinction is not clear and ought not to be assumed. There are philosophers who address questions of ontology in physics, and there are physicists who perforce don a philosopher's hat when they address the fundamentals of their science. No doubt every physical theory assumes an ontology, even if it is an incompletely specifiable one, and even if the assumption is not explicit. Two competing theories in physics may differ in their ontological assumptions or postulates, even if they are pretty well isomorphic at the level of the laws they propose. I do not agree with you that this ontological side to physics is a mere "byproduct" of the physicist's endeavour.

Again, by conventional definition, physics is not philosophy. Such considerations belong in a discussion of "philosophy of physics" or "historical development of physics." Markan 06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Again in the same spirit, if you want conventional definitions, stick with Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. A large part of my own modest contribution to Wikipedia, on the other hand, has been to rectify the patent and persistent errors to be found in such august works. Furthermore, the proper definition of physics is an inescapably philosophical task. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. (It does that to many philosophers, also.) Noetica 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor do I agree that the characterisation of physics that I favour falls short in the same way as the one you favour. Generality is best, for the broad definition we are after. Physics is the science of nature is general, and neither mentions nor fails in not mentioning entities (or laws, for that matter). While I did not propose this characterisation, I defend it as elegant and true! Your more narrow characterisation ("physics is the science concerned with the fundamental laws of nature") is less elegant; and its aptness is disputable, because of the limitation to laws that I have just discussed, and also because the status of "laws of nature" is itself highly contentious in the philosophy of physics, and indeed in physics itself (if that demarcation makes any sense at this broad level). Noetica 06:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Elegance is something to be sought after correctness is achieved. As I've said, I invite you to make a proposal more to your liking which characterizes physics in a way consistent with the conventional understanding of the term. Markan 06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have argued cogently that the definition "Physics is the science of nature" meets both requirements. A truth simply stated is often elegant simply by being true and simply stated, and no further effort is called for. I endorse that definition's retention, because it does capture and always has captured what most of those who have thought about it have concluded. "Ta phusika" meant "the study of the things of nature" to Aristotle; and "physics" (our translation of that old term) means, equivalently, "the science of nature" to most folk now, also. (There, I have endorsed something conventional. Happy?) There is a drift away from directness, simplicity, and elegance in modern language. I want to resist that drift. Noetica 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that all natural sciences study Nature. That is what natural science does. What is unique about physics is not that it studies Nature, but that it is the science that seeks to study Nature at the most fundamental level: determining the underlying rules that govern it. Yes, in principle all other natural sciences are reducible to physics. In practice, though, Science is divided into a variety of distinct sciences, each of which studies its own portion of nature. In this scheme, physics is not the science of Nature, but one of several sciences of nature (natural sciences). It is inarguably the most fundamental of these, but that does not justify calling it the science of Nature.

I haven't changed this in the intro, but I definitely feel that the claim in the intro needs to be rephrased. It's just not a good explanation for Wikipedia. I did change "treats of" to "studies". "Treats of" is just too obscure a linguistic usage for Wikipedia. It is not appropriate here.--Srleffler 04:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Srleffler, about the distinction between a sort of idealised understanding of the term physics and its practical application. Other reference works (OED, for example) capture this difference. The present article does not capture it, and it ought to. Given a forced choice, I go for the idealised undestanding, according to which physics is all-embracing. In fact, though, there is no forced choice. I would favour the introduction of a section, just after the lead-in, headed Foundations and scope. Matters of definition could be expanded on there, as well as the question of relations with the "special sciences". This would indeed be worthwhile, since physics has a unique position among the sciences, and we don't need to shirk responsibility for explaining this. We have the resources! Just now, I don't have the time. But I'd like to return to this task, soon. Meanwhile, I am curious: why do you say this: "Treats of" is just too obscure a linguistic usage for Wikipedia. It is not appropriate here. I have researched the matter (to check the view I already had of this usage), and I have come to a different conclusion. Your evidence, please? (I give some of mine above.) Noetica 00:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As someone who also doesn't think the phrase "treats of" appropriate I would agree with Srleffler. It simply doesn't sound right. It sounds outdated, obscure and simply incorrect to the ear (to me anyway). The intro should be clear, concise and easy to understand (for all), not dabbling in a bit of linguistic back water territory. Elitism is obviously too strong a word to use - but text (most especially introductory text) should be aimed at outlining an article in as clear and simple a manner as possible so it is accessible and understandable for all. Reiteration of that point with regard to this being the intro is worthwhile - obviously complex subjects can and should be covered using fully complex language - but I don't think that the intro for one of the fundamental sciences should be using little bits of complex wording which is only going to confuse most readers. SFC9394 00:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would confuse many readers, SFC9394. Just about everyone would understand it readily, even if they had never seen it before. I note that Markan thought it was "ungrammatical"(!). Well, perhaps he has learned something: but I'm sure he understood it, even if he didn't recognise it as the good scholarly English that it plainly is. All of this raises the more general and serious question of register, which is the real reason, as far as I'm concerned, for dwelling at all on this minute matter of deals with versus treats of. Personally, I see no reason for dumbing things down so that readers are protected from challenges. It might be possible to write an article on physics in the street language of LA, but it might be preferable to preserve some of the language typically associated with scholarly works of reference. I put it to you that this is neither elitist nor obscurantist. Rather, it is a matter of maintaining certain standards that we choose to maintain; and of serving an educational role that we have every right (some would say responsibility) to serve. Noetica 01:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

I realized while writing the reply above, that there is a much more serious problem with the introduction. Three quarters of the introduction are cribbed word for word from Encarta's introduction to its physics article. A citation is provided, but this does not prevent this from being a copyright violation, since the copied text is not set off as a quotation. (Nor would it be acceptable for the introduction to a Wikipedia article to consist mainly of a quotation from another source.) No one can argue that taking a chunk of the introduction to an encyclopedia article and using it in the introduction to another encyclopedia's article on that subject is "fair use". This text must be removed, and may NOT be restored. --Srleffler 04:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I said the same thing a couple of months ago (see above) and it was just re-edited in. This article seems to be suffering in the long term. SFC9394 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the article

Applied physics is physics that is intended for a particular technological or practical use, as for example in engineering, as opposed to basic research. As such, the fields of pure physics should not go under a category with that name. Also, applied physics is not related to the dichotomy between classical and modern physics, which have not even been defined completely. The "Overview of physics research" needs to be directly after the "Introduction" section.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.224.247.234 (talk • contribs) .

See the discussion at template talk:Physics in a box, for consideration of the details of what is in that chart. I happen to agree with you. The chart itself can be edited at Template:Physics in a box.--Srleffler 16:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Classical and Modern Physics

Whoever wrote this section didn't quite grasp the meanings of these words. I myself think it's pointless to have a section of it's own for these terms, but I'll correct what is said anyway. If there any objections, please discuss. Krea 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The source was a respectable encyclopedia, so indeed you do not quite grasp the meanings if you find them in error. Further, it seems odd not to define these terms in a physics article; this concept is comparable to the distinction between "old quantum theory" and "new quantum theory," which is always described in a proper introduction to quantum mechanics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.224.247.234 (talk • contribs) .

Nonetheless, the section was in error. The special and general theories of relativity fall under the rubric of classical physics, whereas quantum mechanics does not. That is the difference, no matter what your source says. See, e.g semiclassical for a typical use of the term. Many popular books – particularly older ones – get this wrong, but the conventional usage has now been established. –Joke 20:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One still must be aware that modern physics has had more than one meaning, i.e., relativity, quantum mechanics, and those areas formulated on the basis of quantum theory or quantum mechanics and quantum-based theories. 68.224.247.234 14:00, 14 July 2006

Yes, that is true, but in this case "modern" is not the opposite of "classical." You could say that relativity is modern-classical, but then you'd start to sound like an art critic. –Joke 21:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you refering to me when you say "so indeed you do not quite grasp the meanings if you find them in error"? I think we all know that "respectable encyclopedias" don't know jack about physics (generally). Anyway, the important thing to clear up was that Classical and Modern physics were not complementary terms, and that we have made clear. What I thought odd was having a subsection for it: it could have just been mentioned somewhere else in the article don't you think? Finally, I'd hesitate to say, "...it has become clear that the laws of nature follow the postulates of quantum mechanics," and, "...the changes brought by these two frameworks to the physicist's world view were revolutionary" because the first statement is unfounded (it only appears to us that nature follows QM) and the second is opinion (I personally put quotation marks around the word revolutionary to signify that that was what some people may regard them as being). These are minor points however and I'm prepared to let them be (although I still prefer the way I said it as it was more eloquent).

Krea 00:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if you believe encyclopedias may not be very accurate about physics in general, the information certainly was not erroneous. I agree that your revision was more eloquent than the other. However, the best might have been the original definitions. 68.224.247.234 22:20, 14 July 2006

I agree that it seems strange to have a subsection for it. Is it really such an important point that it needs its own section? As for the first correction, yes, "appears to follow the postulates of quantum mechanics" is more correct. But relativity and quantum mechanics were revolutionary, and equivocating about it seems weaselly. It is opinion, but an opinion shared by the vast majority of people who know anything about the history of physics in the period 1890–1940. Finally, the word "theorem" is infrequently used in physics. I have removed it from the section. –Joke 02:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - I wouldn't disagree that it was revolutionary either. Although I don't like "classical theories continue to be understood better". I would say that I know QM just as well as I do classical physics, it's just that classical physics seems more intuitive (but only because we were taught classical physics as being intuitively true as children). Could you clarify what you mean by that sentence?

Krea 02:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In Quantum Theory, Bohm shows that quantum mechanics is intuitive, just like classical physics.

68.224.247.234 22:34, 14 July 2006

That's a good point. I don't mean better than QM (although that is true too, as almost all gauge theories are better understood clasically than as quantum theories). That phrase is somewhat awkward. I mean that there have been major new developments relatively recently – like understanding integrability and chaos in classical mechanics. –Joke 02:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Entire texts may focus on classical theories (e.g. Menzel's Mathematical Physics), or point to modern approaches. It's not strange to have a subsection on these topics. 68.224.247.234 22:34, 14 July 2006

To "68.224.247.234": Intuitivity (no dictionary seems to include this word) is, of course, a relative thing, and after a while QM does begin to become more intuitive. The issue of its own subsection is only a minor quibble to which I accede. To "Joke": Can I propose: "Classical theories are, generally, much easier to work with and much research is still being conducted on them without the express aim of quantization."? Is this closer to what you wanted to say? Krea 14:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the changes being made (as I write) about classical vs modern physics. Have a look at classical physics (and its talk page) and you will see that we're going over old ground and making mistakes.

Classical = anything without planck's constant (i.e. includes relativity)

Modern = anything with planck's constant and (sometimes) relativity/20c+ physics.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 20:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The important thing to realise is that classical and modern physics are not converses. Classical and quantum physics are converses and modern physics is a somewhat fluid looser term that sit in between, with overlaps at each side. I'm sorry to say that most of the recent changes will probably have to be reverted. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael, we realise this and changed this section to reflect precisely those sentiments. However, "68.224.247.234", what are you doing? It is not elegent and parts of it are indeed wrong. Why engange in a discussion, and then slyly change the section back? Krea 22:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my comment were in response to the changes happening (which alarmed me), rather than to the previous discussions. Thanks for restoring the previous text. (No doubt some tweaking is still in order, but no major rewrites.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Parts of the section were not wrong. Modern physics can be defined as the aspects necessary to describe the changes in the physicist's world view wrought by the revolutionary theories in the last century, including relativity, or as physics of the twentieth century and henceforth, or just as those theories that are quantized. With classical physics defined such that its equations do not contain Planck's constant, which is used to describe the sizes of quanta, then relativity certainly is included. Thus, both definitions can include relativity and only modern physics contains quantum mechanics. My definitions never stated that relativity was not a classical theory. Furthermore, these terms were designated so as to allude to chronological distinctions, though a theory does not have to be old for it to be classical. Nonetheless, most of classical physics was well established long ago. Therefore, classical physics does not usually deal with the energy scales of modern physics. 68.224.247.234 17:27, 16 July 2006

Those who proclaimed that those definitions were wrong are actually incorrect and illogical. (Note: "Converse" means reversing the order of the hypothesis and the conclusion; you meant "inverse.") 68.224.247.234 17:39, 16 July 2006

OED also defines converse in the much more general sense as "A situation, object, or statement that is the opposite of another." Anyway, reading what was previously written, I accept that it was not tehnically wrong, but it was slightly misleading. I accept all the arguments you have made above are true, but take for example:

Most of classical physics is concerned with matter and energy on the normal scale of observation; by contrast, much of modern physics is concerned with the behavior of matter and energy under extreme conditions or on the very large or very small scale.

Whilst this is indeed true, it is not a definition, and thus is liable to change as our definitions or viewpoints change. First define what the terms mean, and then you can indentify the terms with current principles and notions of chronology. Krea 13:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The terms classical and modern are not opposites, whereas classical and quantum are. Changed article to reflect this. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of physics

I wish to propose changing the definition of physics on the physics page. The current definition (as of 16 July) is:

Physics…is the science of Nature, from the quarks to the cosmos. Physics deals with the elementary constituents of the universe and their interactions, as well as the analysis of systems which are best understood in terms of these fundamental principles.

My main objections are that a definition of physics should be independent of our current description of it, and it is too vague: “from the quarks to the cosmos,” tells you nothing. I propose the following:

In everyday terms, physics is the science of the world around us that attempts to describe how objects behave under different situations. To illustrate, physics tells us that objects at rest like to remain at rest (Newton's First Law of Motion), or that all known processes increase the total entropy of the system and its surroundings (the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

You say "physics should be independent of our current description of it", yet now you are talking about Newton's Laws and thermodynamics.  ??? Just accept "from the quarks to the cosmos" as poetical if you have problems with quarks. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

However, a more formal definition would be that physics is merely the description of, or the desire to acquire knowledge of, how physical objects interact, if they indeed do so. The word "interaction" is understood to mean the influence of one "physical object" on another such "physical object"; and "physical objects" are objects that have been observed to have "interacted" in some way with other such "physical objects". It should be noted that the definition makes no predictions about nature: it does not say what form the "interactions" take, or what the "physical objects" are.

Physics, as defined above, appears to be based on a circular definition between the terms "interaction" and "physical objects". To explain the reason for this, let us remark that we would like physics to be the description of how nature truly behaves, and, as a first attempt at a definition, this is what we may naively assert. However, such an ideal is not thought to presently be possible. If, as observed, no person (or more generally no "entity", which we do not elaborate further on, which can inquire about physics) has any prior, inherent knowledge of the true behaviour of nature, then they may only infer what laws are likely to be followed by nature solely through an act of observation. This conclusion inevitably leads one to accept that it is not currently possible to give any intrinsic meaning to the words "interaction" or "physical objects" that is independent of the other.

Krea 23:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It needs some work, but I like your definition better. "the science of Nature, from the quarks to the cosmos" is meaningless. — Omegatron 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Not meaningless, just an expression of the fact that physics is the fundamental empirical science of everything (as opposed to mathematics, which is tautological or, say, biology which has a narrower domain). --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph is merely an introduction for the lay, the more formal part is "independent of our current description of it". Any suggestions for improvement? Krea 01:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Howabout

Physics…is the empirical science of the fundamentals of Nature, i.e. of everything. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, its not completely meaningless, but I don't think it's really required. Where do you want to put your suggested sentence? As an addition or a replacement?

Krea 01:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A rewording of the opening sentence. I thought that was clear. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How about:

In everyday terms, physics is the science of the world around us that attempts to describe how objects behave under different situations; which it does through empirical observations with the ultimate aim of describing the entirety of nature. To illustrate, physics tells us that objects at rest like to remain at rest (Newton's First Law of Motion), or that all known processes increase the total entropy of the system and its surroundings (the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

Krea 01:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest we take this to talk:physics and I'll see you there? --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but now I need to sleep.... Krea 01:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, me too... here's my current proposal to sleep on, that the article's intro read:

Physics (from the Greek, φύσις (phýsis), "nature" and φυσικός (physikós), "natural") is the empirical science of the fundamental operations of Nature, of everything from the quarks to the cosmos. Physics deals with the elementary constituents of the universe and their interactions, as well as the analysis of systems which are best understood in terms of these fundamental principles.

I don't feel we should mention things like thermodynamics or Newton until we get into the article proper. --Michael C. Price ^talk 02:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should not mention thermodynamics or Newton. And I like this last version the best. However, "Quarks to cosmos" is nicely poetic but on the otherhand only someone who already knows what a quark or cosmos is will understand that this is just an eloquent way of saying "from the smallest constituent to the largest constituent." Something that is poetic but also explanatory would be perfect.--J S Lundeen 12:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don’t see why we need, "…fundamental operations of…" In fact, I don’t know what is meant by an "operation of nature" (do you mean operations on physical equations?). I also think that quarks assume a level of knowledge that may not exist in the casual reader. Also, it's not expecting too much from the reader to assume they know that "Nature" means everything is it? Lastly, this may be a bit pedantic, but, "…best understood…" seems surplus to requirements. What about:

Physics (from the Greek, φύσις (phýsis), "nature" and φυσικός (physikós), "natural") is the empirical science that seeks to understand Nature. Physics deals with the elementary constituents of the universe and their interactions, as well as the analysis of systems which are composed of or derived from these fundamental principles.

Krea 16:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, except that "fundamental" is needed, right from the outset, to distinguish physics from biology, chemistry etc. Once we have added this qualifer then I think the second sentence is redundant and/or too specific in that it presupposes the atomic hypothesis. So I suggest:

Physics (from the Greek, φύσις (phýsis), "nature" and φυσικός (physikós), "natural") is the empirical science that seeks to understand Nature at a fundamental level.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 17:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. It looks a little bare though: when I formulated my definition, I thought I might add some examples, which is why I put Newton and 2Thermo in. But, if that is all that needs to be said, then so be it. Krea 17:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Updated. There are links to science, empirical and Nature, so concise but informative (I hope). --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following concise definition: Physics is the fundamental natural science concerned with the basic principles of the Universe.

Would an unscientific reader understand that "natural" excludes maths? I would replace "fundamental" with "empirical" so as exclude the tautological mathematics. And I'm not sure what "natural" adds as an adjective: the converse would be "unnatural"! So I would suggest

Physics is the empirical science of the basic principles of the Universe.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 20:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This problem may be resolved by linking to natural science.

BTW, you can use the 3rd button in from the right at the top of the edit box to sign posts at talk pages. And sadly natural science and natural philosophy seem confused -- & I don't want to open that can of worms. I'm still not happy with the second sentence in the intro' either -- this seems to be a description of how physics has evolved as a reductionistic science, but it isn't part of the definition of physics (i.e. we can imagine non-reductionistic physics as logically possible.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the sentence, "Physics is the empirical science that seeks to understand Nature at the most fundamental level possible." is fine: it is relatively clear and unambiguous. Which is the "second sentence in the intro" to which you are refering? Is it the, "However, a more formal definition..." bit? Krea 21:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Where it says:

Physics treats of a small number of fundamental concepts, equations, and assumptions to generate simplicity in its physical theories and, essentially, alter and expand our knowledge of Nature

It implies that physics by definition is about simplicity, whereas I don't that is correct. Simplicity is just an empirical fact, not a defining feature of physics. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That sentence should not be included in a definition. At least you and I have agreed on the first paragraph (as above). Do you have any opinions on the rest of the definition? Krea 21:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll change the 1st sentence as indicated and delete the 2nd. Although we should mention somewhere that physics is mostly reductionistic -- not sure where though. Any preferences? --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Straight after the first sentence I suppose: it depends on far into it we want to go. So, place it wherever you think it would be most suitable. Go ahead and I'll take a look at it tomorrow: this is my last post for now. Later. Krea 22:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Although physics is intended to be purely empirical, Superstring theory has no experimental vindication or hint of testability of its predictions. Hence, is it not dubious to declare physics as an empirical science? --68.224.247.234 23:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No -- even if you're right (and you're not) then it would only mean superstrings were not part of physics. Take your dubious claim to the superstring talk pages. Your edits here are looking increasingly like bad faith or ill-informed edits and will be treated as such. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I see 68.224.247.234 is still ploughing ahead with ill-informed edits, contrary to the talk page consensus. They will be reverted before very long.... --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, my edits are not ill-informed as they clearly show an insight into the essence of physics. Second, if one believes that there are not debates as to whether string theory is even science (let alone empirical science), you are ill-informed and need to read on the philosophy of physics. The reversion pertaining to Classical and Modern Physics was accidental, not ploughing ahead (and, thus, a baseless claim was forged by you and founded on incomplete information). Further, the definition of physics I have included in the article is even more concise and less debatable (as it is incorrect to wholly classify physics as empirical). Your edits will now be treated as bad faith. --68.224.247.234 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the debate about superstrings, but it wholely irrelevant; it just means they are speculative, that's all, not that physics is non-empirical (as you yourself say there are debates as to whether string theory is even science -- my point exactly, it is not the definition of physics that is being debated there). As for ploughing ahead, well that is what it looked like before you posted your explanation about accidental reverts and I can hardly be blamed for that confusion. And as for whether your definition of physics is less debatable, we'll see tomorrow -- for myself anything that fails to stress empiricism overlaps with maths too much; the empirical, non-tautological nature of physics has to be emphasized. The physics is physical science tack smacks of circularity. Finally, I'm glad you're now signing your posts. That's good. The next step is to create a login account. It will only take a few minutes and you will find that edits by registered users are treated with less suspicion generally (sockpuppets and all that). Sorry if I rubbed you up the wrong way, but it did look like bad faith editting for awhile. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The definition of physics you have placed on the physics article is at best convoluted: "the most fundamental level possible" is excessive and not eloquent, empirical science ignores the modern approach of particle theory to formulate experimentally unfounded results (though efforts are of course in work to empirically verify the claims of this so-called "theory" -- theories must be directly empirically based), and explicitly states that physics seeks such principles which is passive grammatically. What do you mean that string theory is irrelevant to the empiricism of physics when it is considered a portion of physics and is not directly empirical? Note: I enjoy superstring theory, a constituent of particle physics, but it remains in the domain of mathematical science fiction until testable predictions can be developed from the premise of the "String Conjecture". --68.224.247.234 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

By your definition of empirical science then, any hypothesis before testing is non-empirical. Most people understand hypothesis-testing to be a central part of the scientific method. Your last sentence is a strawman; it is not what I said. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, by my definition and all definitons of empiricism in the philosophy of science, any hypothesis which contains predictions that are testable are empirically-based inherently (i.e., allowing for the testing of its empirical basis). Thus, your statement was a strawman. This claim made by you implies that I would not consider Einstein's general theory of relativity empirical before 1919. --68.224.247.234 01:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, do you? --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course general relativity was empirically-based before confirmed in 1919 since it contained testable predictions (which is not the case for string theory). This follows from the definition of empiricism I declared. Further, it is not circular to define physics as the fundamental physical science if a definition of physical science is carefully developed independent of physics -- merely a relation would have to exist between the two notions. The statement I had made that was said to be a strawman was indeed not as you apparently believe string theory to be a portion of physics and also hold that string theory is irrelavant to the empiricism and definition of physics (while I have shown a correlation between string theory and the empiricism of physics that is factual and a relation to the definition of physics you support, below). In addition, if physics is wholly empirical, then string theory is not a part of physics (but string theory is a part of physics as I have claimed as a matter of fact -- only further evidence that physics is not wholly empirical which is my claim). Note: earlier you said that believing string theory or physics (uncertain as to which you did not believe me on since you have not stated) is not empirical implies that it is not part of physics and irrelevant to the definition of physics (which you insist is defined as an empirical science -- it is the ideal case for physics to be empirical, but since the advent of string theory, physics has strayed from this goal in part) which is incorrect. My initial question on string theory asked is it not not dubious (i.e., is it certain) to consider physics as empirical and you responded no, but should have stated yes if you disagree that physics has a questionable status as an empirical science. --68.224.247.234 01:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please disregard the commentary I made that has been stricken out (by me) as I was far too critical of the standpoint that physics was an empirical science -- in fact I find physics to have empiricism as a foundation and only to have failed in one minor respect (string theory as it stands, though efforts are in the works to test the theory). However, I contend that the definition of physics I have proposed is more elegant than the other aforementioned defintion and consider the application of the adjective "empirical" superflous (as science is inherently, excluding formal science) since the introduction discusses that physics is founded upon the scientific method. The more proper adjectives to precede the term "science" in characterizing physics are "natural" or "physical." (Note: As discussed previously including the terms "physical science" is not circular in describing physics.) --68.224.247.234 05:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, your definition is doubly circular: re "most fundamental" / "basic principle" and "physics" / "physical". And you don't mention empirical. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone else who likes the current definition

the most fundamental physical science, is concerned with the basic principles of the Universe.

over the previous:

the empirical science that seeks to understand Nature at the most fundamental level possible.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you ask, Michael, I should say that I think both are equally inelegant and unhelpful. Perhaps I'll just observe that it is a relatively modern notion that physics, or indeed science in general, must of its essence be empirical. So any use of this idea in a purportedly fundamental and timeless definition of physics misses the mark. Beyond that, for the moment I'll just watch. Right now there's too much going on for further input to be useful – or even properly attended to. Noetica 12:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It was Galileo and Newton who kicked off the empirical tradition: it was only after them that natural philosophy and physics separated (which was why the Principia referred to natural philosophy, not physics). I would never claim that the definition of physics is timeless -- but has been inextricably linked to empiricism for the last 3+ centuries. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Michael, we might add Francis Bacon and a few others there, too. Three centuries or so? Is that all? Not good enough, for a durable definition. Best to go for the essence of this extremely broad field of enquiry – not something so time-bound (O, and culture-bound) as this presumption of empirical falsifiability. After all, perhaps string theory, trends in modern cosmology, etc., are effectively and fundamentally challenging that assumption, anyway. But I'll back off... Noetica 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Heck, let's mention Roger Bacon, so make it 7 - 8 centuries. But why bother, surely it is the current definition that is relevant? Otherwise we are back to angels dancing on the heads of pins and all that. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was only going to be a lay introduction: not necessarily rigorous. I tried a more formal defn as follows:

However, a more formal definition would be that physics is merely the description of, or the desire to acquire knowledge of, how physical objects interact, if they indeed do so. The word "interaction" is understood to mean the influence of one "physical object" on another such "physical object"; and "physical objects" are objects that have been observed to have "interacted" in some way with other such "physical objects". It should be noted that the definition makes no predictions about nature: it does not say what form the "interactions" take, or what the "physical objects" are.

In which case, I think we are getting overexcited about which sentence is better. Shall we concentrate on the "proper" definition first, and then go back to the lay one? Krea 13:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, that seems a reasonable procedure, although I don't really see why the formal definition needs to differ much (at all?) from the lay description. I would rather say that we need a rigorous concise definition, followed by a less concise explanation which would, amongst other things, detail the relationship between maths, physics and the other physical sciences. The major problem I see with your proposed "formal definition" is that the term "physical object" is meaningless or at the very least undefined. Are virtual particles "physical objects"? What about ghost particles? And ripples in the metric tensor? If it can mean anything then it means nothing and can be removed (along with "interaction" which is defined in terms of "physical object") and we arrive at a rather more concise definition.

However, a more formal definition would be that physics is merely the description of the laws that describe reality. Known as the laws of physics. :-)

--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Do your examples interact in some way with something else? If so, they may be described by physics (even if it is a very rudimentary description). These "physical objects" are necessarily vague becasue as I say:

Physics, as defined above, appears to be based on a circular definition between the terms "interaction" and "physical objects". To explain the reason for this, let us remark that we would like physics to be the description of how nature truly behaves, and, as a first attempt at a definition, this is what we may naively assert. However, such an ideal is not thought to presently be possible. If, as observed, no person (or more generally no "entity", which we do not elaborate further on, which can inquire about physics) has any prior, inherent knowledge of the true behaviour of nature, then they may only infer what laws are likely to be followed by nature solely through an act of observation. This conclusion inevitably leads one to accept that it is not currently possible to give any intrinsic meaning to the words "interaction" or "physical objects" that is independent of the other.

Your definition is certainly concise! But, people generally do wonder about the objects to which such laws apply, and you have made no mention of these objects; so, can your definition be considered to be complete? The point is that something that in no way has been seen to interact with anything else cannot be described by physics (such as a hypothetical Creator for which no evidence of any interaction has been found). Have I at least convinced you of the necessity to include "physical objects" in a definition? Krea 14:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but you've certainly convinced me (once again) that empiricism is at the heart of post-Bacon physics and that this point needs stressing. Any object with no observable consequences (such as a deistic creator or demiurge that lights the blue-touch paper of creation and departs) is non-empirical. And yes, people do wonder about the nature of objects (or of reality in general) -- I do myself -- but that is not part of the definition of physics. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A definition of physics is of course a subjective thing, and I acknowledge that one could define physics as just the set of its laws; but, could we not define physics to be the sum "knowledge of nature", in which case we would need to include the objects? I would prefer the latter so that nobody could say, "hey, wait a minute, what about quarks and leptons etc, why aren't they there?" and then we'd have to explain that we are choosing to define physics this way, rather than in another way. Krea 16:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see that we're blurring the distinction between how, what and why here. But once we start describing objects in the definition where do we stop? With shoes, ships and sealing wax? --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We're not going to list all the ojects are we?! Just a generic one will do. The definition tries to be as general as possible (there are some statements that have been implied to be true which will need to be justified in the future), and, to this effect, I essentially try to say that physics is our way of describing what happens when some object is seen to interact with another object (photons on retinal cells, em repulsion between to electrons etc). What the object actually is will affect the details of that interaction. But what I have described in that "definition" is, I believe, the foundation upon which any physical statement of nature is formulated. Krea 21:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have elaborated on the definition by including a second statement. --Kasparov 07:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"treats of" means nothing to me (UK). Is this American English? --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny. I assumed it was British English. It seems that there is one editor (or perhaps a couple) around, who love obscure words for their own sake. Personally, I much prefer clarity. A commonly understood word is always preferable to a rare and obscure one, even if the latter is more precise.--Srleffler 04:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Srleffler, such gratuitous asides as your last will keep this futile discussion churning indefinitely ("It seems that there is one editor (or perhaps a couple) around, who love obscure words for their own sake"). If you and Michael don't know or appreciate the usage "treats of", consider this possibility: it may show your own stylistic ineptness more than anything else. I'm all for clarity, but so far I see only a general wallowing in search of a sound definition. There is obviously no point joining in; I'll just look in from time to time to see if things are beginning to settle down. Meanwhile, spare us your insults. It would easy to respond in kind, if those of us you attack were inclined that way. Michael, the fact that the phrase means nothing to you reflects poorly on your command of the language. Good luck to you all! Noetica 05:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(some lost exchanges followed)

It's a shame the last few exchanges were lost, but I was amused ar how quick Noetica is to accuse others of tossing out "gratuitous asides" whilst strenously proclaiming innocence hirself on the grounds that hir comments were "correct" (I paraphrase since the text is lost). Whether a comment is perceived as correct is a matter of opinion.

Anyway, that aside, yes, my unfamilarity with the phrase "treats of" indicates my poor level of educational attainment, but it also indicates that the phrase is obscure and should be avoided. As I said before, is that such a difficult message to take onboard? --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer not to mention energy, matter etc in a definition because they are not "fundamental" in the sense that nature needed to include them in her laws. Michael, or anybody else, do you have a counter argument for my response above? Krea 11:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason I would also prefer not to mention objects! --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but these generic "physical objects" are fundamental: if there were no objects, then there would be no physics. Remember, I do not specify what these objects are, just that they must exist for the "idea of physics" to exist. Agree or disagree? Krea 12:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Same with "matter", but it doesn't come with the discreteness baggage implied by the plural "objects". Also I don't like the circularity of "physical" in "physical objects". It says nothing. I think we can both agree that "energy" is more derivative, being a post Newtonian concept. For starters I'll delete "energy" from the lead definition. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The "physical" in "physical objects" was just to make clear that the objects were under the domain of this definition: you could argue that there are no other objects, leaving the adjective superfluous, to which I agree; so, you can safely remove it. Now, "matter" is an ambiguous word: what does it mean? Objects that have mass, or any object. If it is the latter, then it is precisely the same as "objects" in my definition: merely a generic "thing" to which laws apply. I would prefer not to include the word "matter" because it can mislead the reader (and I certainly didn't recognise it as being equivalent to "objects" when I first read the offending addition, and flagged it is not being "fundamental"). Ok, we both agree that physics is the description of the laws of the interactions, right? Why don't you also want to include the objects to which these laws apply in a definition of physics? Krea 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You say "Now, "matter" is an ambiguous word: what does it mean?". My point also, but I repeat it about all the terms we've considered: we can't define matter, objects, things .... so we should just remove them from the definition, which is none the poorer for the lack of the undefined terms. But I've said this all before and I'm getting quite tired of it, to be frank. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that then also include the word "interaction"? If we can't define that, then why not leave that out too and be left with nothing? Ok, let's reverse roles: what do you suggest as our definition? Krea 13:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Physics is the empirical science of Nature/existence/reality/the universe.

Then we can proceed to explain that physics has discovered that matter is made of atoms, quarks and describes their interactions etc etc --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

But what does "science of nature", "science of reality" etc. mean? It really is a vague concept when you think about it: "science" can be regarded in both a broad and specific sense. For the sake of clarity, this should be defined properly, especially with regard to physics. Krea 15:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I can guess what your answer probably will be: "science of nature" = "knowledge of nature". But, again, what is "knowledge of nature"? What constitutes knowing something about nature? And then you come to what I have already said: the observation of one object interacting with another object. When we "know" something about nature this is what we really mean: that we have observed that something has interacted with something else. Exempli gratia, when I "know" that an electron is repulsed by another electron, I have seen one object, which I call an electron, repell a like object. Every (as far as I can think) piece of knowledge of nature is precisely this statement in disguise. Therefore, why should it not be considered to be the defining statement of physics. You say, "we can't define matter, objects, things..."; but, I did define both an object and an interaction. You say that you are, "getting quite tired of it, to be frank"; well, I apologise, but you have not given me a satisfactory reason why "objects" should not be included in a definition of an interaction, and why "interactions" do not define what physics is. Is it that you are not happy with the definitions that I gave? Krea 15:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am unhappy because all the descriptions are circular -- as indeed they must be. You define objects as things that interact together and interactions as the "influence" of one object on another. To my mind that says absolutely nothing whatsoever and certainly has no place in a definition of physics. It has a place in the description of what physics has revealed about the world, but not until then. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that, because the definitions are circular, "it says absolutely nothing whatsoever" about the words themselves. If I gather correctly, you wish to say, "Physics is the description of, or the desire to acquire knowledge of nature." I also agree that this is as fundamental a definition as you can probably get. But, where do you think the business of interactions comes in then? As an empirical or logical consequence? Krea 20:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not a logical consequence. I'll go with empirical consequence. Howabout:

Physics is the empirical science, or study, of the nature of the universe. The study of physics describes the dynamics or behaviour of matter in terms of laws or formulations, which are themselves expressed as mathematical constraints or equations. These are known as the laws of physics.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The term "treat(s)", as an intransitive verb, can mean to deal with a subject or topic. In this case the term is often used with the word "of" (e.g., the essay treats of courtly love). Source: Dictionary. --68.224.247.234 07:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Deals with" would be clearer. And please don't delete stuff without asking first, such as the Hubble image. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, on first thought I would have said it was a logical consequence: Objects don't exist => No physics; Objects exist but don't interact => No physics (as we could never determine their existence); Objects exist and interact => Physics exists. Ergo (although further thought is required for me to believe this outright), the existence of physics is a direct consequence of the fact that objects exist and interact. I can think of one possible thorn in this chain of logic: the empirical observation that we do not already possess knowledge of nature. This, however, probably deserves a separate discussion and so I shall leave these ideas until I have given them more thought. Right, "Physics is the empirical science, or study, of the nature of the universe." I suggest we not use the word "science" in the definition of physics but instead just use the word "knowledge". We know that the aim of science is knowledge (I once read that "scientia" is the greek word for "knowledge", but this may be mistaken) but let's not assume the reader knows this and let us avoid the possibility that they must then look up the word "science". Also, hoping that I will not slur Noetica's meaning, Noetica said something about the assumption of empiricability. The empiricability of physical knowledge is itself an observation of nature: it need not have been like that. Thus, we should leave that out of the definition, but explain that we believe this to be true (and is a very important realisation). Penultimately, "nature of the Universe," seems too bold a statement to put in the definition: what is a "Universe"? Is there a physical necessity for its existence? Maybe we should just leave it as "nature". Finally, must we try to define "knowledge" and "nature" further? I will humbly make an attempt to if anybody deems it necessary, but am currently loth to try. Krea 11:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the term "objects" (as I have previously indicated) since the plurality presupposes some sort of atomic hypothesis. "Matter" is a more neutral term.

It is pointless (& impossible) to define all the terms in any definition. Just Wikilink them and be done with it. Which is one reason why we should call it an empirical science.

What suggestions do you have to improve

Physics is the empirical science, or study, of the nature of the universe. The study of physics describes the dynamics or behaviour of matter in terms of laws or formulations, which are themselves expressed as mathematical equations or constraints. These are known as the laws of physics.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

First sentence first: But why not just say, "Physics is the desire to acquire knowledge of nature."? I said before that we shouldn't mention "empirical" in the definition because that itself is an observation of nature (do you want me to justify this?). Also, "nature of the universe" is waffly: just say "of nature". Krea 13:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think physics is a desire. I don't think physics being empirical is an observation. But I have no desire to continue going around in circles. Do what you like. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What if every person was born with a knowledge of how nature truly behaved? Do you think this is not possible? Do you argue that physics would then be empirical? Krea 13:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I can only apologise for not being as intelligent as you, but please explain to me again why you don't think physics is a "desire to acquire knowledge"? Perhaps your definition is a noun: that physics is "the knowledge of nature"? Krea 13:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

physics certainly isn't a desire, it's defined as a science. IMO it's the most general natural science. Harald88 22:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That looks like as a good a definition as we're ever going to get. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok: it is not a desire, I shall accept that. But it is not as good as it is going to get. You haven't responded to my other questions (13:42 19 July 2006), nor explained the reason why "nature of the universe" should not be changed to just "of nature". Krea 23:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, and I don't intend to. I can tell when a discussion is going nowhere. I have made plenty of points that have been left unanswered and have nothing new to contribute. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither will I now continue: I will say no more besides that I suggest that in search of the most general principles of physics that we should all think very hard why it is that physics is empirical, and whether it was required to be. And to Michael, and anybody else, I apologise for not responding to your questions, and causing any offense. Krea 11:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's think very hard about why physics is empirical. Whilst we're thinking so very hard, let's not forget that for the purposes of defining physics here, all we need do is note that physics is empirical. BTW I notice that 68.224.247.234 is updating the definition with no regard to the points covered here previously; I note that the last two sentences of the intro can be replaced by the adjective "empirical" arggghhhh. You're wasting your time 68.224.247.234, I'll be reverting it all shortly unless you explain yourself. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW I offer this suggestion as to why physics is empirical: those bits that are not empirical must be tautological and we define them as part of mathematics. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Professional encyclopedias don't feel overly-compelled to emphasize physics as an empirical endeavor, as it is already implied in mentioning that it is a science, physical science or natural science. There is nothing unclear about physics using the scientific method; in fact, it is mentioned in the Introduction section. This is superfluous nonsense. --68.224.247.234 00:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Describing something as "superfluous nonsense" when you haven't addressed the preceeding point (maths vs physics) is a good way of ensuring your edits get reverted pronto. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The current definition is convoluted, including rather many definitions that are particularly unhelpful in conveying the essence of physics, and even includes nonsense as to how physics is an empirical natural science — the term natural science means that physics is an empirical investigation of Nature. Further, physics is not the science of Nature; all branches of natural science are indeed sciences of Nature; physics is the most fundamental natural science, but this does not elucidate as to what physics treats of. Also, what elementary constituents of the Universe are referred to? These must be stated in the definition for completeness. I propose the following concise defintion: Physics is the branch of natural science that treats of the nature of matter and energy and the dynamics of the cosmos. --68.224.247.234 00:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a consensus? --68.224.247.234 01:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No: you haven't distinguished it from maths, nor from the other more applied sciences. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This definition does exactly distinguish physics from mathematics. Mathematics is not a natural science as natural sciences are empirically founded investigations of Nature and mathematics cannot be defined as treating of the nature of matter and energy and the dynamics of the cosmos. --68.224.247.234 19:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than go through that torturous chain of logic (which I don't agree with BTW) wouldn't it be easier just to say that physics is empirical? --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It is fine to state that physics is empirical, but you cannot state that physics is an empirical natural science as the term science means that body of knowledge or study conducted via the scientific method (i.e., via empiricism). In fact, I emphasized its empirical nature by inclusion of an entire sentence on the matter in the introduction before it was reverted. I agree that the empirical nature of physics should be emphasized, but also note that it should be done correctly so that it does not become superflous (e.g., empirical natural science, which is equivalent to stating the empirical empirical investigation of nature). --68.224.247.234 19:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Further, what do you mean that you disagree with my statement? Mathematics is not a natural science as a matter of fact. Also, mathematics does not deal principally with the nature of matter and energy and the dynamics of the cosmos as a matter of fact. These facts cannot be disputed as they are exactly facts. --68.224.247.234 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well then, then there's no point debating with me, is there? I can see why you don't like using talk pages. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael, you can be certain that when I make an edit to the physics article, that it is precise as I am a High-energy astrophysicist and Professor of Theoretical Physics. I will accede to the current definition that I have made minor adjustments to for now, but it is not perfect and the article is in constant flux (due to unqualified users). I have been wasting my time in these discussions. --68.224.247.234 21:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As I thought, you already think you have all the answers, so why ask any questions. Everything's black-and-white, isn't it? --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

concepts/fields tables

Is it really neccessary to list all subconcepts, sub-sub-concepts and so on, in ugly tables that distorts the reading experience? Spiff 17:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with spiff. The tables should be replaced. - Kookykman|(t)e 17:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if anybody even uses them? They do seem pedantically pointless. I'd definately delete the "concepts" columns (but keep the rest): you could put hundreds (well, maybe not that many, but certainly a lot) of things in there. Some of them may be useful, but some of them are definately not. I mean, most of us (I hope) have already realised that "motion" is one of the concepts of classical mechanics. So, who's going to dare to delete them? I'm not going down that minefield. Since he brought it up, I say spliff deletes them. All in favour...

Krea 13:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There. Someone has to formulate new paragraphs containing a lot of the previous info. Anyone care to start? Spiff 22:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the tables, but feel that the concept sections are convoluted. --68.224.247.234 00:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There were descussions in the past that tables are the most efficient way to provide an overview of all the fields and central concepts of physics. Although my POV on the tables is neutral, they do contain an overview, and it would be wiser to build on that than starting something completely new. Karol 11:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Horace Lamb Quote

I have heard a similar quote attributed to Heisenberg. Wolfram's site http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/biography/Heisenberg.html also suggests there is an ambiguity of this quote. Does anybody have an original source? --Bjsamelsonjones 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Information

Proposed deletion of the tables has put the article in a "larval stage." --68.224.247.234 01:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's growing now. Spiff 10:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Is it time to request semiprotection for physics? --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll second this. We have one anon editor (who has about a dozen sock accounts) who simply has no comprehension (or the desire to comprehend) the wiki process. The user simply wants the page to read exactly as they want - the word compromise doesn’t come into it. It is a mess - and over the last 3 months this page has decreased in quality. We now have a section that reads as nothing more than:

Quantum Electrodynamics

Quantum electrodynamics

That is just crazy - and not helpful to anyone (nor fitting in with the MOS of how a page should look). An article on one of the fundamental sciences should not be a sandbox for someone to have a play with when they choose. If that editor can't respect the process of Consensus (or the rules on Sockpuppetry) then they should not be allowed to dictate what this (or any other) article must look like by simply constantly reverting the changes made by numerous established editors. SFC9394 13:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's crazy. The quality of the article has definitely decreased. We need to impose permanent semiprotection. Some articles attract cranks, and that ain't ever going to change. I see Einstein has had it's semiprotection lifted by some "helpful" admin -- no doubt it will now be vandalised by a tide of pent-up cranks again. The whole Wiki culture needs changing w.r.t. semiprotection. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Not likely to happen. While my sympathies are with you, the semiprotection feature was approved only because it was agreed that it would not be allowed to become a permanent state. There are many in the wikipedia community who hold that it is very important that naive editors coming to the site for the first time must be allowed to edit immediately, without registering an account. It does draw people in. I edited as anon for the first month or two. I'm sure lots of others here did as well. We need to find other ways to reach consensus.--Srleffler 23:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I would favor a temporary semi-protection of this page, however, to help get it back on track.--Srleffler 15:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Continued...

On a related note, were all the tables (I really liked them) taken down by this anon? I've taken a vacation from wikipedia for some time, and I'm shocked with how this article has been degraded. Karol 09:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure which tables were deleted by whom, but the presence of the crusading anons didn't help. I suggest we get semi-protected and revert back to when the various tables were present.--Michael C. Price ^talk 10:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of these edits were actually made by User:Phusis, with the exception of the tables, not an anon. As for the tables, I have always supported their inclusion. Also, when I reverted the article to a previous form (one with the tables and without the larval state currently prevalent), the article was reverted once again to the current article. When I have mentioned the article's lack of information (refer to the section on lack of information here on the talk page), people tell me that work is being done to correct this, when actually I am the only one to have primarily expanded one of these sections (refer to central theories in the article). I am not a sockpuppet and edit with only this account. Criticizing one for remaining anonymous is foolish. Note: I believe the descriptions required to fill in the gaps left by the removal of the tables are too verbose. --68.224.247.234 18:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Spiff removed the tables and User:Phusis restructured the article into its present form with the blank sections. Unfortunately, Phusis did not decide to fill in these sections. (No offense, Phusis.) The set of edits you have deemed poor are by these two users (neither anons). --68.224.247.234 19:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Further, note that when I reverted the article to a state having the tables and devoid of the "larval stage" left by the massive restructuring of the sections (with a minor adjustment to the definition) — a state which you now wish to return to — Michael C. Price reverted these edits and immediately and unfairly suggested semiprotection. Now, as this discussion has progressed you wrongly blame one anonymous user (perhaps me), have concluded on imposing semiprotection and have come to the judgment that the structure I reverted to is best for the article (quite ironically, since it was this strucure's reinclusion that has generated this suggestion of semiprotection, which would do away with me). --68.224.247.234 19:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comments below (which you may not have read when you posted the further note) - I am explicitly not blaming you, I have outlined the problems we have and the person (who changes handle every time he/she edits so I can call nothing but "anon") who seems to be causing the problems. If I were to refer to you I would refer by 68.224, since you are consistent in editing under than handle. I have suggested an alternative which would allow you to participate in the improvement of this article, principally because any editor who is interested in improving the article is an asset. SFC9394 19:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestions and kindness, SFC9394. --68.224.247.234 19:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I should point out, 68.224.. I was specifically not referring to you when criticising the anon - you have been completely consistent in editing under 1 IP addy, and while I may not agree with all your edits, I am perfectly happy for you to contribute, not least because you are prepared to get involved, add a different view and are not using umpteen different accounts to do it. When I refer to the "anon", I refer to the person that has created multiple accounts and only edits from each one once before moving on - there is a pretty large list now, and all link into someone who is editing from India. Checkuser (a function we have here at wikipedia that can tie an account to an IP address) would obviously be needed to prove it beyond doubt, but all other evidence points to it being the case (for example 30 minutes before User:Phusis made all his edits we have User:61.1.232.133 editing in the same vain - the IP addy is from India, and the other contribs from that addy are on Indian subjects). The pic removed by an anon tonight was from an Indian IP addy. This has gone on for the last couple months, all with the same Indian connection (New Delhi, it appears), spread over about 7 or 8 separate accounts (see here for a connection made through a whole swath of them), all being used once before being abandoned (User:Phusis has made no more contribs – and likely never will) – it is a editing methodology that is questionable at best, may be assumed by many to be in bad faith, and at worst purposeful to aid vandalism and to make dealing with that vandalism difficult.

I am mulling over the options on this situation. I am leaning towards a proposal of setting up a secondary WIP page addressed at /physics/wip for all the folks interested in coming together to create a proper consensus article to work on. Each area of the article could be looked at, discussed, consensus reached, and then implemented. I realise this goes slightly against the "up front" wiki ethos, and is much more towards a local implementation of the "frozen version / editable version" concept. The reason I suggest it here is that the article is very big, unwieldy, complex and any discussion related to it can get very semantical. Basically I (and others) have tried to direct people to talk, but discussion is not happening, and discussion amongst the editors who are serious (such as the ones that have posted in this section) is a waste of time if our friend who creates a new account every time he wants to edit comes along and reverts whatever consensus material we have changed in the article. I don't know what other editors think about this - but something needs to be done, as this article is suffering, and I can't think of any other solution. Semi-protection is only a short-term patch that can't remain in place indefinitely. SP is generally only going to be implemented when there is a big vandal hit – an editor not familiar with this articles history would view our situation as a content dispute, not vandalism, despite the fact that what the anon doing is tantamount to vandalism because repeated long term reverting without any attempt to discuss and reach consensus and understanding is vandalism. Even with SP a new account only has to be a certain no. of days old (I think it is 20 or so) before they can edit a semi article anyway (plus SP has the additional downside of blocking people who want to contrib such as 68.224.247 - which is just cutting off our nose despite our face).

With a secondary WIP article page we could work on sorting it out without causing problems for the person who wants it always to be exactly as they see it (e.g. just removed a pic. tonight for no apparent reason other than they personally didn't like it – coming up with a illogical reason about it being artificial – last time I checked superconductivity most defiantly was part of physics and the subject of physics most definitely isn’t just the study of things created by "mother nature"). With a notice on the physics page detailing that there is a review underway and that the article is having major work done to it at the WIP page then we should be able to attract in useful contributors who can add to the debate. What can't continue indefinitely is the continual downward spiral of this article. Thoughts? SFC9394 19:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I converted the talk page comment you referred to above into a template, {{PhysInd anon}}, that can be used to help communicate with and keep track of The Anon. As new identities emerge, just add them to the list in the template, and include the template on the new account's talk page. Don't substitute, so that the list will auto-update. Accounts so tagged appear in Category:Multiple identities of the PhysInd anon.--Srleffler 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on whether or not the page should be reverted to a prior state with the tables (and excluding the blank sections)? --68.224.247.234 20:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have created "Physics as of 23:38, 16 July 2006 by Noetica" at Physics/wip. I suggest we all refrain from editing it without agreeing a consensus on its talk page first. Sound reasonable, or are we going to get a repeat process of what happened here? --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest "Physics as of 23:37, 28 July 2006". --68.224.247.234 21:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I picked the older version because it still has the venn diagram. But let's agree the rules of the game here, before we get down to specifics. Do others think what is proposed at talk:physics/wip is a way forward or not? --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the proposition. --68.224.247.234 21:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, sounds like the idea has found some support. I will do some posting about to try and get some more people involved in the process (the more people come together to reach consensus, the more valid and legitimate that consensus will be). I will let folks know who have previously shown an interest in editing this page, but who have stopped (in quite a few cases because they weren't getting anywhere due to the constant state of flux/immediate reversion of material) of the process that we have started to try and improve the article from top to bottom. Once everyone who wants to be involved has let us know then we can get started on the improvement. SFC9394 18:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to simply decide on a revert as fast as possible, and work from there on the actual article. No point in sitting ona subpage... that would be, in my view, the wiki way. Karol 11:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind a revert on the main article and working there -- I suspect we'll need semiprotection unless the majority of editors co-ordinate well (and I'll be delighted to be proven wrong). --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just had to revert an anon's revert. Note the anon lied in the edit summary -- typical behaviour over the last month or so. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a question of how many of us there will be watching the page and reverting them. It's tedious, but these people usually get tired pretty soon. Karol 20:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

True, perhaps we have sufficient critical mass -- I'm beginning to think this may work.... --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"weaker sciences" in first paragraph of Introduction

This seems a singularly poor choice of words. David R. Ingham 04:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. However you look at it, it's either POV, or unencyclopedic tone. Easily fixed, however. --Srleffler 05:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it (again?), David R. Ingham 05:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent questionable edit

It appears that an anonymous editor completely re-wrote the article from start to finish. I'm posing the question here as to whether or not this user should be reverted, as the edits appear to be good, however the reinsertion of slight POV and the removal of a lot of text is extremely off. Ryūlóng 05:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the discussion two sections above, and talk:physics/wip. Karol 11:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)