Talk:Physics/wip/00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

00:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We need to consider the basic program for physics, instituted most noticeably by the time of the scientific revolution. In the program, a 'system of the world' was demonstrated by Newton, by which ever simpler constructs could be examined. This was the basis for several revolutions over the succeeding centuries during which physics became more and more exact and also more and more abstract. The program for mechanics, instituted by Newton, basically answered 'where' and 'when'. This was the triumph of the geometrization of mechanics begun by Galileo.

Step by step, these constructs took basic mathematical models (Galileo, Newton, Lagrange, Hamilton, Faraday, Maxwell, Boltzmann, Gibbs, Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, etc. etc.) and applied them with ever greater precision. Today, even the most basic concepts such as space and time are known to their theoretical limits; we can even conceive of a smallest space and a smallest time (nonzero). This might be taken as the meaning of 'fundamental'.

But the mass points of Newton are now the target for even closer scrutiny and require the consideration of stupefyingly high-energy realms which we cannot investigate experimentally on Earth, leaving us only the cosmos as our laboratory for particle physics. What are under investigation are basic properties of the Standard Model. This might be taken as the meaning of 'underlying'.

For the eleven-year old, we might point out that the objects of the playground are covered quite well by a freshman mechanics course ('where' and 'when').

For the general public, we might point out that chemistry has been explained theoretically by quantum mechanics, but that the computations require huge computers so that chemistry is still profitably conducted in the lab.

For the general public, and possibly for college grads, we might point out that consideration of 'laws of nature' is encapsulated in the equations of physics.

For the general public, and possibly for college grads, we might point out that the use of approximations is the program for the success of physics. These approximations are the basis of the mathematical models and equations referred to above. The process continues unabated to the present day. That is one problem in the use of the verb 'assert' above.

My personal prejudice is to avoid the use of the terms 'matter and energy' until they are defined more exactly in topic articles. The terms in 'the elementary constituents of the Universe' are ill-defined until we can state to to a comprehending reader what matter/energy realm we are speaking of. Table-top physics is easy enough for the eleven-year old, and an appropriate level at which to speak. The use of bouncing balls, swings, merry-go-rounds, circuits, lenses, telescopes, strings, and other everyday objects are the proper way to introduce things. It does no one any good to talk about "'spaghettification' when entering a black hole" or other advanced topic, in the main article. --Ancheta Wis 00:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

structure of discussion

I don't understand why some but not all of the discussion is diverted here from Talk:Physics/wip.