is Chemistry more beneficial to mankind then Physics

[John Cuthber]

I presume that string junky's point was that the electric motor was built by a chemist who didn't really understand the physics involved.

The electric motor was on the market by 1832, but the physics wasn't sorted out by Maxwell until 1861

 

So, this statement "technology like the electric motor couldnt be created without identification and understanding of the electromagnetic force developed by physicists and mathematicians." is plainly false.

[StringJunky]

I presume that string junky's point was that the electric motor was built by a chemist who didn't really understand the physics involved.

The electric motor was on the market by 1832, but the physics wasn't sorted out by Maxwell until 1861

 

So, this statement "technology like the electric motor couldnt be created without identification and understanding of the electromagnetic force developed by physicists and mathematicians." is plainly false.

 

Yes. And if what you say about Maxwell explaining it 3 decades later is true it also debunks the notion that practical application must always follow theory...you example illustrates that it can happen and evolve arse-about-face.

[Appolinaria]

I presume that string junky's point was that the electric motor was built by a chemist who didn't really understand the physics involved.

The electric motor was on the market by 1832, but the physics wasn't sorted out by Maxwell until 1861

 

So, this statement "technology like the electric motor couldnt be created without identification and understanding of the electromagnetic force developed by physicists and mathematicians." is plainly false.

 

orsted 1820

[StringJunky]

orsted 1820

 

He discovered electric currents produced magnetic fields ...it takes nothing away from Faraday or Maxwell. And again, Orsted was a physicist and chemist.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Christian_%C3%98rsted

[Appolinaria]

He discovered electric currents produced magnetic fields ...it takes nothing away from Faraday or Maxwell. And again, Orsted was a physicist and chemist.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Christian_%C3%98rsted

 

he discovered it with physics. perhaps orsted also went to clown school. should i attribute that to his discovery?

[hypervalent_iodine]

As a further example to StringJunky's and something I hinted at in a post on page one, a lot of the quintessential name reactions still routinely taught and used within chemistry are ones that were discovered in the 1800's. This was all done before the concept of an atom had been properly elucidated - heck, we didn't even know what bonding really was until the early 1900's.

 

One of my favorite examples and someone who has always amazed me is Emile Fischer. He managed to correctly discern the relative stereochemistry of all the simple 4-6 membered sugars (and by a fortuitous roll of the dice, their absolute stereochemistry as well) by simple chemical correlation. This was before the invention of things we use today such as NMR and X-ray crystallography.

 

As I said before, solving chemical problems does not need a knowledge, or even an awareness in some cases, of the physics that governs them at their most fundamental level.

Edited November 28, 2011 by hypervalent_iodine

[John Cuthber]

orsted 1820

Didn't actually understand electromagnetism. He noted it, studied it and wrote papers and such.

The technologists made use of it 30 years before it was properly understood.

[mooeypoo]

That actually happens a lot. The ancient man used a wheel, and pushed carts over a slope. They didn't really know the concept of "inertia" or understand it well enough to make mathematical predictions. They just knew it works, and used it.

[swansont]

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.

 

Quite.

 

I did a postdoc at the TRIUMF cyclotron, but my position was in the chemistry department at one of the affiliated universities, because my boss was a nuclear chemist. (I've also had a job description as an astronomer, but the basic physics I'm doing hasn't changed in all that time — only the application has changed)

[Appolinaria]

Didn't actually understand electromagnetism. He noted it, studied it and wrote papers and such.

The technologists made use of it 30 years before it was properly understood.

 

Wrong.

 

"In classical electromagnetism, Ampère's circuital law, discovered by André-Marie Ampère in 1826,[1] relates the integrated magnetic field around a closed loop to the electric current passing through the loop. James Clerk Maxwell derived it again using hydrodynamics in his 1861 paper On Physical Lines of Force and it is now one of the Maxwell equations, which form the basis of classical electromagnetism."

 

"The operative principal in an electric motor is the same as an electromagnet. Known as Ampere's law, it states that an electric charge passing through a looped circuit produces a magnetic field."

 

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.abo...s/blfaraday.htm

 

 

 

"Using a broad definition of "motor" as meaning any apparatus that converts electrical energy into motion, most sources cite Faraday as developing the first electric motors, in 1821. They were useful as demonstration devices, but that is about all, and most people wouldn't recognize them as anything resembling a modern electric motor."

 

"The first commutator-type direct current electric motor capable of turning machinery was invented by the British scientist William Sturgeon in 1832.[12] Following Sturgeon's work, a commutator-type direct-current electric motor made with the intention of commercial use was built by Americans Emily and Thomas Davenport and patented in 1837."

[mooeypoo]

The idea that technology is used BEFORE the physical interpretation is obvious from things like, as I said, using the wheel without understanding the complete principles of inertia.

 

You really claim that ancient humans pushing a wheel down a slope knew "inertia" and newton's laws? They just knew it works.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Appolinaria you're cherry-picking posts and arguing needlessly now. We've given you plenty of other examples that illustrate the point.

[Appolinaria]

First of all, this whole topic is based on opinion. There is no one correct point to illustrate.

Secondly, to say that the electric motor was applied practically, either industrially or commercially, before electromagnetism was understood is plainly false. Glad to know it's considered needless and "cherry picking" to refute John Cuthber's statement with Ampere's Law that Maxwell merely modified. It says a lot.

 

Anyway, I'm done discussing technology, I've gone off topic enough.

[mooeypoo]

First of all, this whole topic is based on opinion. There is no one correct point to illustrate.

Secondly, to say that the electric motor was applied practically, either industrially or commercially, before electromagnetism was understood is plainly false. Glad to know it's considered needless and "cherry picking" to refute John Cuthber's statement with Ampere's Law that Maxwell merely modified. It says a lot.

 

Anyway, I'm done discussing technology, I've gone off topic enough.

 

It might be based on opinion, but you might not notice that you're nit picking the points you're comfortable with answering and ignoring the ones that challenge your assertions a little bit more. There's nothing wrong with debating about opinions, we do that all the time, and no one expects to "win" the argument, but it feels a bit frustrating when points are ignored (and, if you read again, you'll see it seems to be consistent).

 

No one here attacks you, we're just pointing out that if we are to debate about opinions, the fair thing to do is relate to the various points made, even if you might end up conceding to some points without changing your opinion about the whole.

 

~mooey

 

 

 

[Appolinaria]

It might be based on opinion, but you might not notice that you're nit picking the points you're comfortable with answering and ignoring the ones that challenge your assertions a little bit more. There's nothing wrong with debating about opinions, we do that all the time, and no one expects to "win" the argument, but it feels a bit frustrating when points are ignored (and, if you read again, you'll see it seems to be consistent).

 

No one here attacks you, we're just pointing out that if we are to debate about opinions, the fair thing to do is relate to the various points made, even if you might end up conceding to some points without changing your opinion about the whole.

 

~mooey

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, I agree that perhaps I have not been fair in responding to all opposing opinions. And I did not mean to ignore your argument about the wheel. I think it's an excellent point.

 

However, I still don't understand the statement that physics is pointless without technology. Understanding the specific complexities behind our entire universe is never pointless, whether they're manipulated for the use of technological advancement or not. That statement bothers me immensely.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, I agree that perhaps I have not been fair in responding to all opposing opinions. And I did not mean to ignore your argument about the wheel. I think it's an excellent point.

 

However, I still don't understand the statement that physics is pointless without technology. Understanding the specific complexities behind our entire universe is never pointless, whether they're manipulated for the use of technological advancement or not. That statement bothers me immensely.

 

I think the point was a bit too extreme. I wouldn't say physics is "pointless" without technology. You can use physics as a tool to understand the world around you without using it for practical things like engines or technology. That goes for chemistry too, by the way, though probably a bit less so. Chemistry is a much more "practical subject" than physics.

 

But I do see the point abput the technology for practical reasons.

[Appolinaria]

Someone start arguing, I need a bias while picking classes.

[mississippichem]

Someone start arguing, I need a bias while picking classes.

 

Depends on your major and what interests you.

 

Debating between chem and phys courses?

[John Cuthber]

Incidentally, I presume that communication in proper English isn't seen as important to mankind, or someone would have corrected the typing errors in the title.

[StringJunky]

Incidentally, I presume that communication in proper English isn't seen as important to mankind, or someone would have corrected the typing errors in the title.

 

It's not an error, it's called licentia poetica.

Edited November 30, 2011 by StringJunky

[Appolinaria]

Depends on your major and what interests you.

 

Debating between chem and phys courses?

 

I am, don't know if the OP is. Don't want to get a warning here, but here goes my situation.

 

I need to keep working for a little while longer before I can go to school full time. So I'm gonna take a couple of classes to get an idea. Random ones. I might not major in anything involving phys/chem. That's kind of why I'm here. I'm very confused right now, it's terrible. I just want to believe there's more to my life than what it's been. I want to understand the wind that makes my wings dance. I love math and it makes me feel like I'm staring at the universe right in the eyes and it's staring right back. But I don't know if I have what it takes. All of you are so intelligent. Anyone can be drawn to these subjects without understanding the tediousness behind them, the intelligence required... the patience, discipline, etc. I need to assess aspects of myself before I can make the right decision. There are many facets of myself that need to be satisfied. I don't want to make the wrong decision. I want to be happy, and feel okay at the end of the day. Typical youth confusion, I'm just a little slower than most.

 

 

 

 

-Lifetime movie script ends-

 

 

 

 

Anyway, any type of advice is really appreciated. What kind of personality it takes for either/etc. Why you chose chemistry/physics. The posts about how they differ have been helpful.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

It's not an error, it's called licentia poetica.

 

Dear Sir, your poetic license is hereby revoked with immediate effect.

[John]

I am, don't know if the OP is. Don't want to get a warning here, but here goes my situation.

 

I need to keep working for a little while longer before I can go to school full time. So I'm gonna take a couple of classes to get an idea. Random ones. I might not major in anything involving phys/chem. That's kind of why I'm here. I'm very confused right now, it's terrible. I just want to believe there's more to my life than what it's been. I want to understand the wind that makes my wings dance. I love math and it makes me feel like I'm staring at the universe right in the eyes and it's staring right back. But I don't know if I have what it takes. All of you are so intelligent. Anyone can be drawn to these subjects without understanding the tediousness behind them, the intelligence required... the patience, discipline, etc. I need to assess aspects of myself before I can make the right decision. There are many facets of myself that need to be satisfied. I don't want to make the wrong decision. I want to be happy, and feel okay at the end of the day. Typical youth confusion, I'm just a little slower than most.

 

 

I think most of us who haven't been on a constant upward path throughout our lives struggle with confidence issues in this situation. I myself am pretty much convinced I'm fairly intelligent, and even I keep wondering if I've made a mistake deciding to pursue mathematics.

 

At least for me, I find myself thinking about the giants---Newton, Euler, Gauss, Pauling, and so many others---and I wonder why I even bother, since the odds are I'll never be on their level in their respective fields. However, at the end of the day, science owes its current state to far more than just the relatively few names that have made the history books. If you're the next Einstein, then great, but if not, you can still make valuable contributions to your field.

 

Intelligence is required, of course, but at the risk of sounding like I'm catering to political correctness, I think for the bulk of people who would even consider going into science, it's more a matter of interest and dedication. Then, of course, there's the feel-good notion that you should at least give it a shot, because if you do you may fail, but if you don't you'll never know whether you would have succeeded. I know the risk of failure is hard to swallow (at least for me, being well past the age most people attend and even graduate college, and therefore worried about wasting more time), but avoiding all risk is impossible, and attempts to do so leave life a bit dull.

 

Try a few classes out, and see what seems to work best for you, keeping in mind that lower-level courses aren't necessarily the best indicators of what later classes will be like. Don't be caught up quite so much in choosing the "right" field. There are numerous examples of scientists who completed their undergraduate work in field X, then went to graduate school and started careers in field Y. It may not be the most direct or efficient route, but these examples at least indicate that if you do get to the end and realize you've made the "wrong" decision, it's not as if you've ruined your chances of ever being happy.

 

Good luck, in any case. I'm afraid I don't consider myself to be in a position to really comment on the general topic at hand.

[Pits]

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

 

 

 

People might think Physics is smarter than Chemistry because maths is harder for them and physics based on more mathematics. Being a chemist I think biology is smarter than physics and chemistry because for me biology is harder than mathematics. I really do no understand why people fight between these subject matter. Now at this time there is no any topic or subect area which physics or chemistry or biology claims its own. For example, I am doing crystallography and I major in organic chemistry, learnt how to do cystal anaysis from physicist side. I know how to sythesize it from chemist view and I will know how to get its application from biologist side. Can anyone tell me in which side of study area am I? These issue are worthless unless you can prove it by theory and application.

[Timmehhh]

Chemistry is just the physics of the outer electrons!

 

I think of chemistry as applied physics, both are just as important. What good is physics if you can't apply it?

 

But where would chemistry be without physics? All that molecular characterization and such that is possible thanks to scientific equipment (e.g. spectroscopy, x-ray techniques, force/electron microscopes), possible only due to our understanding of physics (light, molecular forces, etc). The ability to perform these experiments and analysis are fundamental to our understanding of molecular interactions which define chemistry.

 

Physics is to chemistry what chemistry is to biology. The physiological process in a biological system are all driven by chemical reactions, which can all be studied by our understanding of chemistry.

 

Edited October 11, 2012 by Timmehhh