what\´s the mother of all sciences ?

what´s the mother science

  • there is no mother science

    Votes: 14 73.7%
  • math

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • physics

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • chemistry

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • philosophy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    19

ol' man

New Member
Sorry I also forgot to ask you to explain with yer Physics why there is matter to begin with to warp space/time.

I mean surely since Physics is the mother of all science it must have created matter and the tiny particles/waves that form it.

How can something of mass warp something that is simply a measurement with no true mass or even velocity?

I think before you can make any speculation(mathmatical figures) you had better acknowledge what it is that you are calculating in the first place.


One day the great void said to itself, I am lonely!

What came first the particle or the egg!
 

outside looking in

<b>Registered Member</b>
Physics is as yet uncomplete. In addition to that, there are some problems that are intractable with current computer technology, but solvable in theory. Look at protein folding for example, completely based off of the atomic interactions of its constituents.

Sure, there are many parts of chemistry that aren't easy to explain by reducing the explanation to physics. That's why reductionism isn't a cure-all be-all methodology. But it is a powerful, and well proven tool. Some of the specific questions you have are likely answerable by current theories, but the calculations are enormously complex, making them impossible at the moment.

Neutrinos... low mass particles predicted to interact extremely weakly with nuclear particles. What is the mystery there? Granted, the current state of physics (a conglomeration of the Standard model, quantum physics, and Einsteinian Relativity) doesn't explain why there are neutrinos, or why they are weak. It doesn't explain why there are any of the specific particles we observe or why the have the particular properties they do. That is sure to change in the future though. There is already progress being made to combine gravity and the other forces. The current "best guess" theories actually have a very elegant explanation for what gravity is, and why it has the effect on mass that it does. It's just a very sketchy explanation at present... much like chemistry was a hundred years ago.

Also, although there are parts of chemistry that don't reduce well to physics, it is still probably the most powerful example of the success of reductionism. Chemistry would not even be the science it is without physics. Chemistry was a black art confined to tinkers and alchemists until we began to learn what atoms really are... electrons, protons, neutrons. Ions, isotopes, the arrangement of electrons that organizes the periodic table; all of these things are direct extensions of pure physics. Sure, we can't predict precisely what properties the result of a mixing of two molecules or compounds will be, but we can't predict precisely what the orbits of three mutually orbiting bodies will be for all times in the future either. The point is that although we know the underlying theory, the problem is intractable (well, in the latter case, I'm not completely sure if the problem is analytically solvable, but time step approximations has become a powerful tool for their solution).

Just my thoughts. Physics is the foundation of all science. There are emergent sciences to be sure, and you can't reduce many of them to physics even in part. You don't have to though... without physics, our understanding of reality would still be in the hands of theologians and philosophers. Not a pretty picture.
 

ol' man

New Member
But it is a powerful, and well proven tool.

You said it your self, it is a tool.....IMHO for Chemistry:D

You don't have to though... without physics, our understanding of reality would still be in the hands of theologians and philosophers. Not a pretty picture.

Much better than thinking to yourslef I am merly a programmed biological robot with no place to go once dead but back to the great void. That to me is the ugliest homeliest picture and would maybe explain why your women broke up with you:D


Like I said explain why there is matter(atoms) and energy in the first place? I don't think any level of Physics will be able to explain this one.
 

outside looking in

<b>Registered Member</b>
Originally posted by ol' man
Sorry I also forgot to ask you to explain with yer Physics why there is matter to begin with to warp space/time.
I'll take a shot at that one. Quantum mechanics allows for vaccuum fluctuations to produce bubbles of space and time, and matter and energy, from nothing. Our universe could simply be the result of one large, exceedingly rare statistical fluctuation. That is pure speculation, but it is a nice thought that a mechanism of physics can explain its own birth.

How can something of mass warp something that is simply a measurement with no true mass or even velocity?
I don't think either of those labels is technically true of space. Space is expanding, it is not merely a measurement of something else. Outside space, there is nothing. Space is something. Also, space does have mass in a sense. Virtual particle pairs are continuously popping into existence with "borrowed" vaccuum energy, annihilating, and returning their energy to the vaccuum. The combined result of all these statistical fluctuations gives empty space energy. In fact, I think the net result is to give space a negative energy. It seems that empty space exerts a uniformly distrubed "inverse gravitation" like repulsive force on all matter.

Thus, space, being something, is easily warped by mass. If you dig deeper into some of the recent conjecture and theories like M-brane and superstring theory, it turns out that (according to those ideas) empty space is a certain vibrational pattern within a closed string loop or membrane (multidimensional string equivalent). Other "harmonics" give rise to the multitude of particles and forces we observe. In that framework, space is hardly "nothing." In fact, it is almost the same as matter or energy, strictly speaking. It just happens to be vibrating at the "vaccuum" energy, instead of the "proton" energy. It is still subject to gravitation, it just reacts differently. M-branes or strings alter their geometry in response to interactions with strings/branes vibrating at "mass" energies, and in return, mass energy vibrating strings/branes respond by altering their geodesics to follow the "vaccuum" energy geometry.

Quite a lovely picture of things is you ask me.
 

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
Chemistry could not handle cuantic physics (oohhh did i say physics? :D ), basically because it says that everything is partially a mass and partially a wave.

Chemistry is not the mother science, it studies the matter, but matter is not everything, you need to take into the place also what the energy does, and this is where physics find their way.

You can say that physics is a tool for chemistry, just as i can say that chemistry is a tool for physics.
 

ol' man

New Member
I'll take a shot at that one. Quantum mechanics allows for vaccuum fluctuations to produce bubbles of space and time, and matter and energy, from nothing. Our universe could simply be the result of one large, exceedingly rare statistical fluctuation. That is pure speculation, but it is a nice thought that a mechanism of physics can explain its own birth.

Ah yeah that will fly?
:D:rolleyes:



You can say that physics is a tool for chemistry, just as i can say that chemistry is a tool for physics.

Not really!

I don't think either of those labels is technically true of space.

I was not talking about space. I was talking about time.


Chemistry could not handle cuantic physics (oohhh did i say physics?

What is cuantic physics? Do you mean Quantum Mechanics?

Wow all I can say is the BS is spreading pretty thick here.


Why Is There Gravity?author unknown
When you pick up a stone and release it falls to the ground. This seemingly simple concept has been known throughout history as gravitation. Isaac Newton managed to explain gravity in terms of its effects, but few have come up with a working explanation for the driving force behind it. The mysterious nature of some of the more peculiar effects of gravity, as well as the simple ones, indicate that explaining why there is gravity will be a long, difficult, yet intriguing task.
Ohanian (1976) writes that without other forces interfering, mass attracts mass. This is the fundamental concept behind gravitation. Newton explained it as "there is a power of gravity pertaining to all bodies, proportional to the several quantities of matter which they contain… The force of gravity towards the several equal parts of any body is inversely as the square of the distance of places from the particles." This description of gravity creates the simple mathematical explanation of gravity: that the force of attraction, F, equals G * ((m1 * m2) / r^2).
This holds true for most gravitational interactions on earth, so any proper theory of gravity would have to include similar results for these interactions. Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler (1973) explain that there are, however, some more complex aspects of gravity that this law does not account for. One of these strange gravitational effects is observed in the "perihelion shift" movement of planets, the most dramatically affected of which is the planet Mercury. Feynman, Leighton, and Sands (1963) contest that another hole in Newton's predictions about gravitation is that repercussions of changes in gravitational state are felt instantaneously. In other words, gravitational effects travel faster than the speed of light, which is in direct contradiction with Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. This led Einstein to develop a more advanced theory of gravitation. This was known as the General Theory of Relativity and is the closest and only thing that mankind has as an answer to "Why is there gravity?"
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity introduces the idea that space itself can be curved. Just as the ground on earth appears to be flat though it is actually curved, Einstein suggested that space may behave much in the same way. Misner et al. (1973) compared the curvature of space to an ant walking on the surface of an apple whose direction was perfectly toward the stem of the apple. The shortest possible path on the surface of the apple to the stem was a curved line. Thus Einstein has theorized that the shortest possible path in a gravitational field is actually a curve, which is contrary to traditional Euclidean geometry. The other basic concept of general relativity is that gravity is essentially indistinguishable from acceleration. A person standing inside of a stationary elevator on earth could drop a ball and it would fall, accelerating at approximately 9.8m/s^2. A person standing in an elevator free from gravitational fields, but accelerating upwardly at 9.8m/s^2 would experience the same effect. Einstein used this similarity between gravity and acceleration in the creation of the General Theory of Relativity. One of the most stunning things about Einstein's theories is that they were created with virtually no experimental verification. Only later, after his death, have we been able to prove various aspects of the General Theory of Relativity experimentally. In this sense, Einstein was well ahead of his time. One such prediction that was ahead of its time was that time moves slower in the presence of a gravitational field. In Einstein's day, they simply did not have the resources to test this experimentally. In more recent times, however, through the use of atomic clocks we have shown this to be true. It is certainly amazing to make predictions about something so abstract on a purely theoretical basis and then later have those predictions verified through experimentation.
Unfortunately, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is the only theory of gravity that has never failed experimentally. Other theories that work experimentally are essentially tweaked versions of the same ideas that Einstein had in the General Theory of Relativity. I feel this "theory monopoly" that Relativity has is detrimental to physics in general, being that it has closed too many doors too quickly. Nonetheless, I have no choice but to choose Relativity as the best theory for gravity. The biggest argument I have against it is that it does not actually explain why gravity occurs. It seems more like an advanced system of equations to show the effects of gravity with greater precision. When the underlying idea behind the equations is that "Matter warps geometry," you have to ask yourself "Why would matter warp geometry?" Also, I find it counterintuitive that space could be warped in the first place. In this sense, there is no current answer for why there is gravity. Richard P. Feynman, in 1963, contested that "no machinery has ever been invented that 'explains' gravity without also predicting some other phenomenon that does not exist". While this may sound like an opinionated statement, when one disregards the General Theory of Relativity as an explanation for gravitation, it becomes quite true.
At present, the great mystery of gravity is still very much a mystery. Its effects are virtually 100% calculable, but there is still no solid answer for the age-old question of "Why is there gravity?" What we do know, however, is that mathematically, space behaves as if it is curved in the presence of matter. Whether this contradicts reality, or simply the human mind, we may never know.
 

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
Originally posted by ol' man
What is cuantic physics? Do you mean Quantum Mechanics?

Wow all I can say is the BS is spreading pretty thick here.

Probably it is quantum mechanics, my primary language is not english, you should now that, and not because of that i'm talking BS.
 

ol' man

New Member
Originally posted by Luis G
Originally posted by ol' man
What is cuantic physics? Do you mean Quantum Mechanics?

Wow all I can say is the BS is spreading pretty thick here.

Probably it is quantum mechanics, my primary language is not english, you should now that, and not because of that i'm talking BS.

I wasn't saying you were full of BS. IT was more directed towards OSLI. You should know that. Still though it does not hide the fact that indeed you may be full of BS since you brought it up:D
 

outside looking in

<b>Registered Member</b>
Originally posted by ol' man
Ah yeah that will fly?
:D:rolleyes:
I said it was speculation, but speculation that a large numbers of scientists are fond of.

me:
I don't think either of those labels is technically true of space.

you:
I was not talking about space. I was talking about time.

you previously:
Sorry I also forgot to ask you to explain with yer Physics why there is matter to begin with to warp space/time.

How can something of mass warp something that is simply a measurement with no true mass or even velocity?
I took space/time to be equivalent to space-time, the four dimensional fabric of reality (or 11 dimensional, or whatever it is). Thus, I described space-time interactions.

I read that snippet you posted. Nothing really new there, except that the author neglects all the work that's been done in theoretical physics in the past twenty years. ;) There are some elegant, if incomplete, explanations for why there is gravity, and how and why it warps space-time geometry.

An interesting off-shoot to ponder... gravitational fields slow the relative pace of time. Physicists now think that there may actually be no flow of time, or motion through time, but that time is simply an illusion: space-time is a collection of static time-slices of the universe, each slice a single quantum value different from the next, and together they form an all encompassing network of all possible outcomes of all particle and force interactions throughout history. In this framework, you remember the "past" simply because there is only one time-slice that is only one quantum value different from the "present." You don't remember the "future" because the network branches towares the "future"... there are nearly an infinite number of time-slices a quantum value different in that direction. Thus, you remember the past and not the future simply because the human brain can't process information of trillions upon trillions of slightly different futures, instead, it ignores them all. While that's somewhat interesting, the most intriguing part to me is how gravitation could slow down the relative perception of the pace of time if time is only an illusion, a by-product of a static branching network.

Chew on that one... :)

Wow all I can say is the BS is spreading pretty thick here... I wasn't saying you were full of BS. IT was more directed towards OSLI.
I think you know better. ;)
 

StuTheWise

Member
Shoot, when he said mother of all science, I thought he meant the mother the same way Hot Shots was "the mother of all movies". Sheesh.. since you guys are talking literal here...

I would dare agree that philosophy is the mother of all science... being that it was the first science. When the first man (Adam if you are Christian or Jewish) was able to ask himself why he was here and what his purpose in life was... I suppose philosophy was born and all other sciences came thereafter.
 

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
First science is pholosophy.

Most important, that's a tough one, if we are going to say what's the most important i would say math, because without math many other sciences will just fall apart (including chemistry and physics).

Real life applicated science should be physics and chemistry, there's a very thin line that make them different, while chemistry studies the matter, physics studies how the matter gives us energy and interact with another matter (cause and effect), chemistry without physics is useless, just as well as physics is without chemistry.

BTW, ol'man, i think you're smart enough to be able to state your opinion without claiming that people that have a different point of view are full of BS.
 
Top