Dreamer Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 What is the conceptual difference between Chemistry and Physics?
Dreamer Posted January 12, 2004 Author Posted January 12, 2004 What makes the job of the chemist different from the job of the physicist?
JaKiri Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 Chemistry deals with the interactions between electron shells. Physics deals with EVERYTHING. Obviously, chemistry is a subset of physics.
greg1917 Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 Physics deals with EVERYTHING Everything? That would be everything EXCEPT topics found in biology, chemistry and any other science, such as psychology. Dictionary.com describes the two as: Chemistry - The science of the composition, structure, properties, and reactions of matter, especially of atomic and molecular systems. The composition, structure, properties, and reactions of a substance. Physics - (used with a sing. verb) The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics. (used with a pl. verb) Physical properties, interactions, processes, or laws: the physics of supersonic flight. (used with a sing. verb) Archaic. The study of the natural or material world and phenomena; natural philosophy. To say Chemistry is a subset of physics is just belittleing chemistry which is hardly surprising coming from a physicist
JaKiri Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 greg1917 said in post #4 : To say Chemistry is a subset of physics is just belittleing chemistry which is hardly surprising coming from a physicist Science consists of either Physics, or stamp collecting.
wolfson Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 MrL_JaKiri Chemistry is NOT a subset of Physics at all.
JaKiri Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 wolfson said in post #6 :MrL_JaKiri Chemistry is NOT a subset of Physics at all. That's what you'd like to think.
Radical Edward Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 I agree with MrL. All science a subset of Physics. Physics is in turn a subset of maths, namely the mathematical models that correlate with what we can empirically measure, with a few extra axioms and the like thrown in for measure.
VendingMenace Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 i would agree that chemistry is a subset of physics. Why? Well, most things in chemistry are explained using physical models. HOwever, i would not consider this belittleing at all. I think that people that would take this as an insult are not quite secure in the fact that they are chemists -- perhaps they really wanted to be physicists? Anyway, why is this not an insult? Because, the chemist chooses to investigate a particulare aspect of "physics" in great detail. SO much detail, in fact, that all other aspects of physics must be almost excluded. Of course this all depends on what you are doing in chemistry. A physical chemist will know almost as much nuclear chemistry as a nuclear chemists. By the same measure, a nuclear physisist might know a great deal about moleculare orbital theory. The point being that "chemistry" is just a short hand way of saying , "i specialize in the physics of interactions between molecules, wich mostly has to do with the interaction of outershell electrons with other outershell electrons and the formation of moleculare orbitals, yadda yadaa yadda." Of course this is rather long to say, so we just say "i am a chemist." No of course this saying is a bit belittleing. Science consists of either Physics, or stamp collecting. Refferring to things other than Physics as stamp collecting shows an inability to appreaciate anything other than what you do. But sometimes that is what happens when you are involved in something that the world really reveres. If we lived about 100 years ago, people would have scoffed at you if you were a physicsist -- chemistry was where it was at then. And before that, it was all about being a natural biologist. And before that it was about being an artist. So, really it is all about what period you are iin, whether or not you get to feel superior about your career. Anyway, i think the reast of us understand the importance of this so called "stamp collecting." And one other thing, we must decide on what "science" means if we are to really agree that sicence is either physics or stamp collecting. FOr instance, is economics or scocial sciencec science? If so, then your statement is incorect. Of course, you might not consider them science, i don't know. I don't even know if i do, but whatever
JaKiri Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 VendingMenace said in post #9 :Refferring to things other than Physics as stamp collecting shows an inability to appreaciate anything other than what you do. But sometimes that is what happens when you are involved in something that the world really reveres. If we lived about 100 years ago... It's a quote from Lord Rutherford. From about a hundred years ago. [edit] And things aren't science if they don't use the scientific method.
swansont Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 "All science is either physics or stamp collecting" (or something close) is a quote from Ernest Rutherford. If you disagree, take it up with him.
Skye Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 It's only belittling if you consider stamp-collecting belittling. I had a grandfather who made a great living from stamps
Radical Edward Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 VendingMenace said in post #9 :No of course this saying is a bit belittleing. that is ok. Chemists deserve to be belittled. They are chemists you see.
greg1917 Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 Im 6 foot 4. Try and belittle me. just try it.
JaKiri Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 greg1917 said in post # :Im 6 foot 4. Try and belittle me. just try it. OK. I'm 6'7.
YT2095 Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 MrL_JaKiri said in post # : That's what you'd like to think. then it`s all a SubSet of Science! neither physics nor Chem can exist without each other, it`s a plain old ireconcilable fact. the two go hand in hand. to answer post #1 Physics deals with all that goes wrong during a demo. Chemistry deals with all that stinks the Lab out and never the twain shall meet
JaKiri Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 To quote Richard Feynman, 'All these rules (talking about chemistry; things such as the periodic nature of the elements) were ultimately explained in principle by quantum mechanics, so that theoretical chemistry is in fact physics.'
YT2095 Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 and when you use a battery to make an electro magnet in the Lab, you exploit chemical principals and so I restate that chem and physics go hand in hand
JaKiri Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :and when you use a battery to make an electro magnet in the Lab, you exploit chemical principals and so I restate that chem and physics go hand in hand Since when were the chemical principles not physical principles? Venn venn venn!
YT2095 Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 ok, then lets talk Venn diagrams My "set" (Chemistry) encompasses all to do with chemicals. Your set (Physics) encompasses all to do with things and stuff (I can`t really define it as it`s so broad). BUT... there is an overlap (the 2 circles make an eliptical) and in there are shared common factors to BOTH subjects chem is no more a subset of Phys that the other way around, there is only an overlap, like a shifted 8 where the two O`s cross
JaKiri Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :chem is no more a subset of Phys that the other way around, there is only an overlap, like a shifted 8 where the two O`s cross That's silliness; chemistry's entire remit is within the role of physics, whereas physics deals with much more than chemistry. If you notice, there's shared elements between biology and (chemistry and physics), yet some elements are seperate; these are more behavioural areas, which we cannot explain through physical law as of yet. We can explain all of chemistry through physical law.
Radical Edward Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 consider two sets, one set A is the set of all the things you can do using physics. the other set B is the set of all the things you can do using chemistry. B is a subset of A, since all the things you can do in B, you can also do in A. However A is not a subset of B, since there are things you can do in A, that you cannot do in B.
JaKiri Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 Radical Edward said in post # :consider two sets, one set A is the set of all the things you can do using physics. the other set B is the set of all the things you can do using chemistry. B is a subset of A, since all the things you can do in B, you can also do in A. However A is not a subset of B, since there are things you can do in A, that you cannot do in B. Demonstrated through the power of MSPAINT! FEAR THE PAINT!
YT2095 Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 well that`s totaly bogus from the pair of you!, why not call the Border "Science" just Physics then?
JaKiri Posted January 13, 2004 Posted January 13, 2004 YT2095 said in post # :well that`s totaly bogus from the pair of you!, why not call the Border "Science" just Physics then? Because some things (like behavioural analysis) aren't covered by physics.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now