is Chemistry more beneficial to mankind then Physics

[Rabbiter]

i don't want to start a fight between physicist and chemist on this board, but with your best, as non-bias as you can, answer

 

what is more beneficial to mankind...

 

Chemistry or Physics

[mooeypoo]

This is a moot question. Both physics and chemistry are methods of describing reality. They are not mutually exclusive, and they answer different type of questions.

 

It's like asking "which is better for you, being awake or sleeping" -- you need both, and each has its own set of benefit. You wouldn't live much if you gave up one. Same goes with physics and chemistry, really, in relation to science.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

They are not mutually exclusive, and they answer different type of questions.

That's the point, isn't it? Which answers more important questions? I mean, studying advanced underwater sheep-shearing techniques certainly answers quite a few questions, but they're not particularly useful for anyone.

[hypervalent_iodine]

How do you define what is and what isn't an important question, though? I would say chemistry perhaps has a more direct impact on society in the questions it answers (for the most part, at least), but the ability to answer them is reliant so heavily on questions already answered/being answered by physics that it is impossible to say which is more beneficial.

[Appolinaria]

i don't want to start a fight between physicist and chemist on this board, but with your best, as non-bias as you can, answer

 

what is more beneficial to mankind...

 

Chemistry or Physics

 

 

Good luck with non-biased answers. If a chemist thought physics was more beneficial to mankind, they probably wouldn't be a chemist. Let the fighting commence...

 

According to me, they're both equally important. Different facets of the universal truths.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Good luck with non-biased answers. If a chemist thought physics was more beneficial to mankind, they probably wouldn't be a chemist. Let the fighting commence...

 

And yet you'll notice that of the three other replies, two from physics majors one from a chemistry major, not one of them said that their discipline was the better of the two

 

Not everybody is so altruistic in their choice of majors. I do chemistry because I love doing chemistry, not because I think that the work I do will make a great impact on society. A lot of people study science for similar reasons - i.e. they do science because they find science interesting, not necessarily because the application (if one exists) will be useful (although it certainly does help when procuring grant money).

[Appolinaria]

No, Cap'n didn't give his opinion and I took it that physics is more important since chemistry is reliant on it.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Perhaps I should have elaborated some more in my above post.

 

Our understanding of the finer details of chemistry and the way atoms behave is very much attributed to questions answered by physics. Therefore, one could say that in a very indirect sense, all answers stemming from chemistry owe themselves, in part, to physics. This was perhaps more evident at the inception of QM and the various chemical theories and models that derived from it. In the words of Sir William Bragg on the topic of the 'Progress of Physical Science' (Sir Halley Stewart lecture, 1935):

 

I need not make any apology to my chemical friends if I assume that I may deal with their work also, because our two sciences, that once could be kept apart more or less, are now increasingly blended into one

 

This was, however, in the 1930's and while chemistry certainly does rely in this knowledge, it does not need to concern itself with such intricacies to derive solutions to modern chemical problems; see the entire field of organic chemistry for more. Certainly, there are areas within chemistry that overlap quite heavily with modern physics; this I suppose begs the question of where does chemistry stop being applied physics and starts being a discipline in its own right? You could also ask the same question of biology in relation to chemistry or of physics in relation to math. I'm reminded of this:

 

 

 

And so, the question still remains, which area answers the more important questions? Again, you need to define what is considered important and what is not and you need to define the boundaries of where one area stops being a strict application of the other. Furthermore, how do you measure the concept of importance quantitatively enough to make any testament as to which is more beneficial? The problem I see with defining what you use as a measure is that it would most likely be inherently bias towards one discipline. For instance, if I were to make my measure 'the number of human lives saved as a result of X', I would be selecting for for the area more concerned with medicinal application. You would therefore have to make it a summation of a number of indicating factors, the problem then being, 'how do you weight them?' and once again, 'how do you quantify them in a consistent and non-bias manner?'

 

To summarize, I don't think this is really a question that can be fairly or properly answered past the fact that they both contribute to mankind. They are both necessary areas in advancing our repertoire of scientific knowledge and in the general progression of our technological society. They are, however, not mutually exclusive and as such remain, 'blended into one,' in such a way that you cannot really separate a given question into one or the other discipline.

[Appolinaria]

I can see how chemistry relies on principles of physics, but I don't see how principles of physics rely on the field of chemistry.

 

For example, a physicist,

 

"Moseley's discovery demonstrated that the atomic numbers of elements are not just rather arbitrary numbers based on chemistry and the intuition of chemists, but rather, they have a firm experimental basis from the physics of their X-ray spectra."

Did the adjustment of atomic numbers by a method derived from physics not lend to accuracy of chemical predictions?

[hypervalent_iodine]

I never said they did.

[Appolinaria]

And that's why I think physics is more important.

[hypervalent_iodine]

And that's why I think physics is more important.

 

You're entitled to your opinion, however it's not really related to the OP. It's asking whether chemistry answers more important questions than physics, not, 'is chemistry higher up than physics in terms of hierarchy'.

[mooeypoo]

That's the point, isn't it? Which answers more important questions? I mean, studying advanced underwater sheep-shearing techniques certainly answers quite a few questions, but they're not particularly useful for anyone.

 

How can we judge this, though? Without getting into issues of bias, can you really make judgment about which field has answered more important questions? A lot of those are so interconnected, it's inseparable.

 

For instance, Marie Curie's discovery was relevant to BOTH physics and chemistry. In fact, she got a Novel Prize in Physics (1903) and another in Chemistry (1911). Can we really judge which of those was "more important" ? Those were two angles of the same concept, each leading to different paths that could very well be of same importance.

 

You can't really judge these, can you?

 

 

 

 

There's a famous "jab" physicists say to chemists (and to everyone, really) that Chemistry is just "watered down physics". While it might be an amusing statement of superiority, and it does have elements of truth in it, that doesn't make chemistry less important. It's not like chemistry deals with the same issues physics deals with only "less accurately", or "more accurately". It's completely different in approach; the level of abstraction is different.

 

I am not sure we can even judge this question fairly at all.

 

 

 

 

 

P.S I find it extremely ironic that I seem to advocate against ridiculing chemistry, seeing as I'm first in line to jab a hot physics stick in any chemist I see. And yet, I do it for humor's sake, and only when I'm sure the person involved knows I'm being a jerk for fun. I don't *really* think there's superiority here.

 

I can see how chemistry relies on principles of physics, but I don't see how principles of physics rely on the field of chemistry.

This is no different than saying that psychology relies on the elements of neurology, but neurology doesn't rely on psychology. Psychology puts neurology in context of the brain's status as it relates to the person's state of mind. They work together, and complement one another.

 

Physics and Chemistry complement one another in the same way. Physics looks at the "higher level" abstraction, the movement of particles, the forces, the interactions. Chemistry, in very very general sense, looks at a lower level of abstraction, with combination of mutliple levels of interactions and their derivatives. You can calculate the same problem in physics or in chemistry -- depending on what you want to achieve.

[swansont]

There's a famous "jab" physicists say to chemists (and to everyone, really) that Chemistry is just "watered down physics". While it might be an amusing statement of superiority, and it does have elements of truth in it, that doesn't make chemistry less important. It's not like chemistry deals with the same issues physics deals with only "less accurately", or "more accurately". It's completely different in approach; the level of abstraction is different.

 

I am not sure we can even judge this question fairly at all.

 

There's also Rutherford's "All science is either physics or stamp collecting"

 

I think this is like asking which is more important to humans, the respiratory system or the circulatory system. Failure of either one results in death. Plus the line between chemistry and physics is not nearly as distinct as it was before the development of quantum mechanics, when Rutherford uttered his quote.

[mississippichem]

And that's why I think physics is more important.

 

And this is why you're misguided:

 

Physicists need high tech materials to conduct high tech experiments.

 

Who do you think makes superconductors and ultra-pure zone refined silicon for electronics?

 

Physics is more fundamental than chemistry. But physics is dead in the water without chemistry also.

Edited November 28, 2011 by mississippichem

[John Cuthber]

"i don't want to start a fight between physicist and chemist on this board"

Then you really messed up with your choice of question.

 

And both chemistry and physics are pointless without technology, engineering, education, healthcare, refuse collection...

 

So the answer to "Who do you think makes superconductors and ultra-pure zone refined silicon for electronics?" is probably engineers or technicians.

In principle the process for zone refining silicon doesn't really do any chemistry.

If you want to argue with that statement, please provide an equation- unbalanced will do for a start.

 

(Incidentally- note to physicists who think that they can actually achieve anything with their glorious mathematical descriptions of the world: Have you solved the 3 body problem yet? No? I though not. So, since the whole lot relies on a set of approximations, the gap between them starts to look even smaller)

Edited November 28, 2011 by John Cuthber

[mooeypoo]

(Incidentally- note to physicists who think that they can actually achieve anything with their glorious mathematical descriptions of the world: Have you solved the 3 body problem yet? No? I though not. So, since the whole lot relies on a set of approximations, the gap between them starts to look even smaller)

I just solved it yesterday on a napkin, but I lost it in a spherical cow.

[mississippichem]

 

So the answer to "Who do you think makes superconductors and ultra-pure zone refined silicon for electronics?" is probably engineers or technicians.

In principle the process for zone refining silicon doesn't really do any chemistry.

If you want to argue with that statement, please provide an equation...

 

[ce] Si \rightarrow Si [/ce]

 

You have a point.

 

However I'm standing by my superconductor statement:

 

[ce] Y_{2}O_{3} +2BaO_{2} + 3CuO \rightarrow YBa_{2}Cu_{3}O_{7} [/ce]

 

And yes, the Yittrium atoms don't balance. There is some other yittriate product.

Edited November 28, 2011 by mississippichem

[Appolinaria]

"i don't want to start a fight between physicist and chemist on this board"

Then you really messed up with your choice of question.

 

And both chemistry and physics are pointless without technology, engineering, education, healthcare, refuse collection...

 

So the answer to "Who do you think makes superconductors and ultra-pure zone refined silicon for electronics?" is probably engineers or technicians.

In principle the process for zone refining silicon doesn't really do any chemistry.

If you want to argue with that statement, please provide an equation- unbalanced will do for a start.

 

(Incidentally- note to physicists who think that they can actually achieve anything with their glorious mathematical descriptions of the world: Have you solved the 3 body problem yet? No? I though not. So, since the whole lot relies on a set of approximations, the gap between them starts to look even smaller)

 

technology like the electric motor couldnt be created without identification and understanding of the electromagnetic force developed by physicists and mathematicians.

[mooeypoo]

technology like the electric motor couldnt be created without identification and understanding of the electromagnetic force developed by physicists and mathematicians.

 

Sure. You can probably find similar technology for chemistry discoveries. It's not necessarily about the phenomenon itself, it's the level of abstraction we use. That is, elecromagnetic force is described in physics, but electrochemical reactions are described in chemistry; one examines the "parts" and the other the full "system"** and both give a different beneficial outcome.

 

This is not different than comparing climatology with physics. Climate science relies almost exclusively on physical explanations like fluid mechanics and chaos theory. On the other hand, Physics deals more with the "small resolution" of things. It will make much less sense for us to try and explain what leads to the development of hurricanes using strictly physics, which is why Climatology -- which looks at the subject from a 'higher' resolution -- manages it better. Sure, you can explain it all with physics, but that's a different resolution that will give you a result that will be used, practically, in different ways.

 

Same goes to Geology, and to Medicine and biology. Look at Bio for instance (and biologists, read all before you kill the physicist). If you think about it, in the lower resolution of biology, it's all nothing but Physics and Chemistry. The interactions of particles and systems. "Enzymes" are just complex molecules (physics) that do complex reactions with other specific molecules (Chemistry) but the way they do it relates to the entire system, at which point Biology is its own subject.

 

You have Biophysics, which deals with the physical "angle" of biological processes (like in enzymes or proteins), and you have physical chemistry that is very similar to both chemistry and physics. In the industry, especially "pharma related" and things like microchips and such, physicists often work alongside chemists (and in some cases biologists). It's not like each of them works on an exclusively different subject matter. They work together, it's all about describing "reality" and processes in nature. The question is just which angle you choose to do that.

 

They're all equally important.

 

 

 

 

** Yes, I'm extremely over simplifying things. I am not saying Physics doesn't deal with systems, but I thought the analogy of "looking at a wider resolution" was suitable. If it's not, I'll try to explain myself again.

[mississippichem]

I think all disciplines are of equal importance really. We'll never be able to explain gene sequencing with string theory and we'll never be able to predict the fate of the cosmos with organic chemistry.

 

I think the lines are becoming more and more blurry though which is a good thing.

 

Take for example physical chemistry and chemical physics. I do the former but work with people who do the latter. I've found that our primary difference is what department we are registered with . The subject matter is almost identical, especially in the computational science world.

[StringJunky]

technology like the electric motor couldnt be created without identification and understanding of the electromagnetic force developed by physicists and mathematicians.

 

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

British physicist and chemist, best known for his discoveries of electromagnetic induction and of the laws of electrolysis. His biggest breakthrough in electricity was his invention of the electric motor.

 

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfaraday.htm

 

[Appolinaria]

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)

British physicist and chemist, best known for his discoveries of electromagnetic induction and of the laws of electrolysis. His biggest breakthrough in electricity was his invention of the electric motor.

 

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfaraday.htm

 

 

your point is?

 

i dont know how chemistry contributed to identifying the electromagnetic force that allowed faraday to create the electric motor.

 

the statement that physics is pointless without technology doesnt make sense to me. technological advancements depend on physics. physical laws are the origin of other sciences.

[mooeypoo]

your point is?

 

i dont know how chemistry contributed to identifying the electromagnetic force that allowed faraday to create the electric motor.

 

the statement that physics is pointless without technology doesnt make sense to me. technological advancements depend on physics. physical laws are the origin of other sciences.

 

Physics isn't "pointless" without technology, just like math isn't "pointless" without application. It can't be really used effectively for human advancements without technology.

 

But anyways, I think the concept of resolution is the stronger point here. Technology and application aside, chem and physics deal with different approaches to, sometimes, the same questions. Both of these are important, and produce very important answers both for application and for continued theories.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I was telling moo a story the other day that serves to illustrate her last point, so I'll share it here too.

 

Recently I went away on a holiday with a group of my friends. One night, I was playing 500 (a card game) with 3 other people who had either finished their degree or finished the vast majority of it; one of those people was a chemical engineer, one a biophysicist/mathematician and the last one a physicist. We were drinking a bottle of port we purchased collectively a few years prior and of the four of us, 2 had cups that were the same and the other two had completely different ones. When it came to the near-end of the bottle, we needed to divide the final bit of port evenly and were undecided how to do it. I suggested we pour two equal amounts into the identical cups, using one as the standard measure and the other to pour into the other two cups. My physicist friend scoffed and accused me of being a chemist, telling me that you could do it more efficiently by pouring into each cup for the same time at the same rate. He proceeded to say that if he were an astrophysicist, he probably wouldn't bother with either approach and take the bottle for himself, since the error margin is in large orders of magnitude. That of course did not agree with the rest of us, so we took the chemistry approach instead. He also mentioned that being the quantum physicist that he is, the difference in volume in each glass wouldn't be even close to accurate enough for him unless there was an exactly even distribution with an error 10^-whatever. At that point he was given his now poured glass and told to make do.

 

So you see, different strokes for different folks. Same question, two different solutions.