Astronomer vs. Astrophysicist?

[mooeypoo]

Hi guys!

 

Simple question, not much need to over-explain:

 

What (if any) is the difference between an Astronomer and an Astrophysicist?

 

 

Thanks!

 

~moo

[ajb]

Astronomy is the science of observation and collecting data from astronomical objects. It is a practical science.

 

Astrophysics is a theoretical science in which the laws of nature are used to explain astronomical phenomena as observed by the astronomers.

 

In reality I imagine this distinction is quite blurred.

[swansont]

Astronomy is the science of observation and collecting data from astronomical objects. It is a practical science.

 

Astrophysics is a theoretical science in which the laws of nature are used to explain astronomical phenomena as observed by the astronomers.

 

In reality I imagine this distinction is quite blurred.

 

I think labeling astrophysics as theoretical will come as a great surprise to the many astrophysicists that do experimental work. Astrophysics has a lot of overlap with nuclear/particle physics, since much of the investigation involves looking at nuclear reactions that should happen in stars and during the big bang.

[pioneer]

They need to open a third branch called astral-chemistry. The job description is to work under the assumption that chemical processes can explain a range of phenomena. Then use the principles of chemistry to see if they can come up with explanations. I am not saying everything would be apppropriate, but many things are. For example, after a supernova has cooled, predict the types of minerals and chemicals based on physics projections of the atomic composition. This debris is what is assumed to form second generation stars. It would give us a handle on identifying where things may have occurred and when it may be possible that second generations stars might appear in the future. A chemist analysing atomic spectra data will also notice subtle things that might indicate these same atoms are participating in chemical reactions or within stable chemicals. Or the appearance of certain chemical balances may impy the presence of other catalytic atoms, that may not be visable using standard techniques.

[swansont]

They need to open a third branch called astral-chemistry. The job description is to work under the assumption that chemical processes can explain a range of phenomena. Then use the principles of chemistry to see if they can come up with explanations. I am not saying everything would be apppropriate, but many things are. For example, after a supernova has cooled, predict the types of minerals and chemicals based on physics projections of the atomic composition. This debris is what is assumed to form second generation stars. It would give us a handle on identifying where things may have occurred and when it may be possible that second generations stars might appear in the future. A chemist analysing atomic spectra data will also notice subtle things that might indicate these same atoms are participating in chemical reactions or within stable chemicals. Or the appearance of certain chemical balances may impy the presence of other catalytic atoms, that may not be visable using standard techniques.

 

All of that falls within the realm of astronomy and physics, really, other than the use of the term "astral" vs "astro." Spectral lines and the presence of molecules in space are already known and studied.

[ajb]

I think labeling astrophysics as theoretical will come as a great surprise to the many astrophysicists that do experimental work. Astrophysics has a lot of overlap with nuclear/particle physics, since much of the investigation involves looking at nuclear reactions that should happen in stars and during the big bang.

 

I agree that astrophysics and cosmology rely on nuclear and particle physics as observed here on earth. I thought that the definition of astrophysics was the "application of the physical laws of nature to astronomical bodies". As we cannot preform any experiments on these bodies then by definition astrophysics must be theoretical.

 

However, I completely accept your criticism of this definition and I recognise that people do preform experiments here on earth and in orbit in order to help explain astrophysical phenomena and cosmology.

 

I have never really liked the idea of partitioning physics into sub-fields. If we accept that physical laws are universal then this distinction between sub-fields is arbitrary, but undoubtedly useful.

 

Today, I think that the modern astronomer and astrophysicist are more or less the same.

[Severian]

I know 'astrophysicists' who get offended if you call them 'astronomers'. I'm buggered if I know the difference.

 

I am also slightly bemused by why so many universities have a 'Department of Physics & Astronomy". Isn't Astronomy a subset of physics?

[iNow]

I am also slightly bemused by why so many universities have a 'Department of Physics & Astronomy". Isn't Astronomy a subset of physics?

WARNING: Severe oversimplification to follow!

 

Simply looking through a telescope makes not one a physicist. There is overlap, but they are different in enough ways to sub-classify. I believe many astronomers knowledge of physics is an emergent property of their desire to view and measure the motions of the cosmos.

 

I have no disrespect for astronomers and hope my comments above present to the reader in the way I intended.

 

 

This is Eleanor Arroway, transmitting on 14.2 megahertz.

[swansont]

It's probably also true that it's possible to become an amateur astronomer without learning a lot of physics. It's one area of science where nonprofessionals still make notable contributions, like discovering comets.