Talk:Physics

philosophy section

the philosophy section being placed up at the front with it's own section is just really weird. i came here to read about physics, and instead got a weird reading article about how physics is actually philosophy with literally no explanation or examples or anything besides a couple references.

physics is not philosophy, and to call the history of physics philosophy is abdurd. there is philosophy of physics. many old physicists have been philosphers. the two fields are deeply connected. but the way the philosophy section reads is that physics is just a branch of philosophy? what?

this sounds absurd, comes off absurd, and doesn't do anything to help me put physics into a wikipediacally sound perspective

i recommend the philosophy section be merged into the "relationship to other fields" section, moved to the end of the article, thoroughly rewritten, or deleted entirely.it's placement and writing is misleading and confusing 2600:6C47:A03F:C443:9D6A:D4C0:8251:D89D (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

ALSO ADDING that the "philosophy" section directly contradicts the "history" section by going "well physics is REALLY just an extension of greek philosophy" after literally talking about and discussing the history of physics for a whole thorough section? 2600:6C47:A03F:C443:9D6A:D4C0:8251:D89D (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is time to fix this significant problem with this page. I will be making some changes... Qwerty123uiop (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Linking first occurrence of “scientific” to its article

This may seem minor to others, but physics is first and foremost a field of *science*; therefore the first occurrence of the word “scientific” should be linked to the page “science”. The second occurrence IS linked. Apparently my username or password expired as it has been many years since logging in. Thanks for considering and have a great day. - Arthur. 2600:1004:B0B1:50BC:D111:6A80:124F:EA38 (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively the first sentence could follow the pattern of, for example, the biology page - immediately identifying it as a natural science. 2600:1004:B0B1:50BC:D111:6A80:124F:EA38 (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, why not do it yourself? Actually, I will make some changes... Qwerty123uiop (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

entertaining objections/critique concerning addition

I propose to add this sentence:

Though many people anticipate a theory of everything, open fields like non-equilibrium thermodynamics, complex systems, and neuroscience challenge the hypothesis that the laws of 3D (material) systems are sufficient to explain the creative capacities of life.

Presumably in the same location as my prior offering, at the end of the second (final) paragraph of the “core theories” section, but I am open to discussion. (Multiple locations? :) )

objections?

“But the principles must be principles about something. The principles that I just spoke of, the conservation of energy- is the energy of something; and quantum mechanical laws are quantum mechanical principles about something. And all these principles added together still doesn’t tell us what the content is of the nature, that is, what we’re talking about. So I will tell you a little bit about the stuff, on which all these principles are supposed to have been working.”

critiques?

“Now, how to guess at what to keep and what to throw away. You see, we have all these nice principles and known facts and so on. But we’re in some kind of trouble– that we get the inifinities or we don’t get enough of a description, we’re missing some parts. And sometimes that means that we have, probably, to throw away some idea. At least in the past it’s always turned out that some deeply held idea has to be thrown away.”

~~matter~~

“I give another example, even more interesting and important. Probably the most powerful assumption in all of biology, the single assumption that makes the progress of biology the greatest is the assumption that everything the animals do, the atoms can do. That the things that are seen in the biological world are the results of the behavior of physical and chemical phenomena, with no extra something.”

[=](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAuY9TWichM&t=to+cool+to+dance+eden+xo)[x](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhDGdT33K0k&t=book+of+love+nataly+dawn+cover+magnetic+fields)[=](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFWX0hWCbng&t=kesha+blow)

“So I wanted to discuss the art of guessing nature’s laws. It’s an art. How is it done?”

NedBoomerson (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC), by the holy reciprocity inhering among apriori complex and apriori plural imago dei NedBoomerson (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The citations you have attached do not directly support the sentence, so this does not meet Wikipedia's policy at WP:NOR. MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No. Please read about synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Johnjbarton (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you revert my prior only for the typo in the second link? (“m” for “b”) NedBoomerson (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

No I removed your post because it has external links that were not related to this article topic and appeared to me to promoting products or viewpoints. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

uncontestable even if denuded,

Matthew 21:37 NedBoomerson (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You are expressing a lot of personal opinions and pointing to speculative articles in your statements. This page is part of an encylopedia. It is not a chat forum for (currently) marginal ideas. Maybe consider looking over the Philospohy of Physics page to see whether these statements are appropriate there. In any case, this is not the place for speculations. Qwerty123uiop (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Really bad writing in the first paragraph

Really bad writing. Went to change it. God help us if we are left with the bad writing the way it was before. God help us!

Let's all agree to actually make it better instead of leaving in in the festering rotten awful state it is right now. Mattamatician (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Your tone is hyperbolic, to say the least. If what you're saying is true, it is "a clunky sentence", not what you're saying. I would ask you please refrain from hyperbole if possible. As far as the content tself goes goes:

−

For example, advances in the understanding of [[electromagnetism]], [[solid-state physics]], and [[nuclear physics]] led directly to the development of television, computers, [[domestic appliance]]s, and [[nuclear weapon]]s, which have all transformed modern-day society; advances in [[thermodynamics]] led to the development of industrialization; and advances in [[mechanics]] inspired the development of [[calculus]].

+

For example, advances in the understanding of [[electromagnetism]], [[solid-state physics]], and [[nuclear physics]] led directly to the development of new products that have dramatically transformed modern-day society, such as television, computers, [[domestic appliance]]s, and [[nuclear weapon]]s; advances in [[thermodynamics]] led to the development of industrialization; and advances in [[mechanics]] inspired the development of [[calculus]].

Your change is problematic because it doesn't explicate that this is an incomplete list, and thus assigns undue emphasis to the examples listed. The improvement is removal of the unnecessary intensifier dramatically, which I will go ahead and remove myself. Remsense ‥ 论 05:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mattamatician I like the changes you are making and I encourage you to continue. Think what you want but please avoid characterizing other people's contributions. Assume they are doing their best and now you can make it a bit better.

(I agree with the Remsense version, but we could also omit "transformed modern-day society".) Johnjbarton (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Short description

Hi Johnjbarton, I am reasonably familiar with the guidance on short descriptions, and do not see how "Scientific field of study" is a better navigational aid than "Study of matter, energy, forces and motion", particularly when Physics is listed along with assorted other scientific fields of study, as can and does happen (and is why I was motivated to change it to a less ambiguous version). Perhaps you could explain your reasoning. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk):

Short description

@Pbsouthwood (I can't "Reply" to the previous topic)

The way I understand Short Description is to type "Physics" into search, then ask "What is the shortest way to ensure that readers can pick the right entry?" This is the only criteria.

The reason I prefer "Scientific field of study" is that it is shorter and it avoids endless arguments which ensue if one attempts to condense an entire article into 40 characters. "Study of matter, energy, forces and motion" sounds reasonable, but someone may come along and say, No! physics is only about matter and energy! "Study of matter and energy". If you look through the history of the page you will see that happen here.

To be sure we do end up with discussions like this one on occasion. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be some sort of malfunction and the [reply] link is missing. Most strange. However, if you directly edit using the [edit source] link it can probably be replied to in the old way. The [subscribe] link also seems to be missing.

I don't know how familiar you are with Wikipedia:Short description, but there is no hard limit of 40 characters, and there is a requirement for the short description to fulfill a set of WP:SDPURPOSEs, not just a search with "physics" as the only search string. I would be happy to compromise with Study of matter and energy if you prefer hit, as that would distinguish it from biology, chemistry, geology, ecology, astronomy, etc, which are all scientific fields of study. I based the reverted version on the contents of the lead paragraph, which is the usual and recommended way, and which works adequately in most cases. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

What is your criteria for "works adequately in most cases"? No purpose listed suggests the short description needs to be a definition. The top purpose is "a very brief indication of the field covered by the article".

I find short descriptions are among the top sources of pointless churn for articles. It will be wonderful when the search bar uses AI instead.

"Study of matter and energy" assumes readers thing of "matter" and "energy" as we do, as fundamental issues, and not as in "what matters to me" and "fossil fuel".

But if you insist, change it and let the churn begin. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)