Talk:Biophysics

message: An amateur, I'm wondering why there's no mention here of D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson. --Wetman 12:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Erwin Schrödinger and What is Life?.  Much of the history could be better covered. WebDrake 18:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a separate article on Medical Imaging, which seems to need improvement, though it's not a barren as this one. DGG 04:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older comments 

message: will someone please explain the connection between Reynolds number and molecular scale? And between traditional biology and statistical ensemble experimentation in biology? To me, as a molecular biologist ,it would seem you mean cell biology  and molecular biology, but the examples are very unclear. 
: where is the part on reynolds number in the article? cant find anything on that there now. I am also a bit baffled at the statement of ensembles. Benkeboy (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but it does not mean that "individual molecules" can be studied as part of biophysics. Benkeboy (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Work with individual molecules is very much a part of biophysics research. Single-molecule imaging and manipulation are among the most active topics in biophysics. --chodges (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: reynolds number

message: Also, what is the distinction between a famous biophysicist and a merely notable one?
 DGG
: should the section on famous biophysicists be omitted althogether? How would you measure the fame of a biophysicist? Benkeboy (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would support this, and rather stick to the topics and methods, many of which have their own articles where the relevant people are mentioned. -- Mietchen (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that this list may be out of place here. If plain deletion may be controversial, probably the list can be moved to an independent article Famous biophysicists. Anyhow an objective criteria must be defined to include a name in such list. I propose that this criteria may be based on well recognised prizes and minimum publication influence. Eventually other softer criteria may be used for notable researchers, like being appointed head of department on a well ranked university, a smaller h-index, nominations to prices or other public recognition.Godot (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous biophysicists 

message: In one of the introductory paragraphs, the following sentence appears:
:"Studies included under the umbrella of biophysics span all levels of biological organisation and range from molecular modeling and sequence analysis to neural networks to systems ecology."
From my perspective, these are all computational or theoretical topics. I am inclined to either remove this list, or repopulate it with some experimental methods as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.182.6 (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Given examples are biased? 

message: The list of "Topics in biophysics" doesn't look nice.
Can these topics be structured in some kink of hierarchy , sub-group or categories?
If no conceptual order, at least we can gain some aesthetic benefit placing them in a three column table. Godot (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topics in biophysics 

message: A very good source for the descreiption of biophysics can be found at the biophysical society website:
http://www.biophysics.org/tabid/517/Default.aspx 
It also has a list of biophysical topics:
http://www.biophysics.org/AboutUs/Committees/Education/EducationalResources/tabid/471/Default.aspx
--Biophysik (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for this page 

message: I'm rather surprised to find Nasif Nahle's page http://biocab.org/Biophysics.html in the External Links section.  Nasif's page is riddled with errors of dimensional analysis and basic algebra.
For example he presents the following formula:  q = M – W – E – Q = W/m^2.  He then states that "...M is the metabolic rate of human body in Mets (58.2 W/m^2 = 1 Met), W is the mechanical work produced by the human body, E is the rate of total evaporative loss due to evaporation of sweat, and Q is the total rate of energy loss from the skin..."  It is mathematically impossible to add or subtract quantities with different units, and yet M is watts per square meter while W (mechanical work) has units of joules, and Q (rate of energy loss) is in watts.  It's harder to guess what he means by E, but presumably it is in watts.  The equation is nonsense.
Also we find a formula that he initially presents as q = e σ A [(ΔT)^4], but then later uses in the form 
q = 0.7 (A) (σ) (Tsur^4 - Thb^4).   (ΔT)^4 can of course be written as (Tsur - Thb)^4 as ΔT is simply the difference between two temperatures.  (Tsur^4 - Thb^4) is not equal to (Tsur - Thb)^4.  The simplest way to demonstrate this is to plug in some numbers, like (admittedly non-biological values) of Tsur = 2 K and Thb = 1 K.  (Tsur - Thb)^4 = (2 K - 1 K)^4 = (1 K)^4 = 1 K^4 whereas (Tsur^4 - Thb^4) = ((2 K)^4 - (1 K)^4) = (16 K^4 - 1 K^4) = 15 K^4.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barak Thunder (talk • contribs) 03:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nasif Nahle 

message: Can we get an article created for Quantum Biophysics, I do it, but have no idea how to begin the article? Space Commander Plasma (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to begin with decent sources, as there is a lot of discomfort in both physics and biology when people start trying to insert QM where it's not immediately expected, and there are a very few number of processes exclusive to biology (such as to be 'biophysics' rather than simply physics or chemistry) that I am aware of that require some QM to fully understand. Basically, the article must be justified as something 'separable' from biophysics and/or biochemistry. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Quantum Biophysics

message: The main picture in this article seems like a particularlily odd choice. E = MC^2 might be an appropriate for an article on relativity, but biophysics? There are many equations (not to mention countless pictures) that would make more sense here. 
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.67.95 (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not the main picture of the article but of the physics navbox. I agree, though, that it would be good to add a picture. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the "general physics" infobox and substituted an image of the photosynthetic reaction center, which suggests structural biology, membrane, and spectroscopic parts of biophysics and was awarded a Nobel Prize for solution of the structure. Dcrjsr (talk) 05:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Beautiful image! It could use a little more detail in the caption and a citation, though. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Main picture

message: Hello, all; thanks for letting me come in and make some suggestions.
This article houses many strengths in what biophysics actually is (in terms of its overlaps in the different scientific fields), but I also believe it to be lacking in its overview.
Here is a suggestion for improvement:
The organization in the Overview section is a little choppy—there is a first paragraph on molecular biophysics first and then technology usage and then structural biology and medical physics, which seems very choppy and off-putting when a lineage of overlaps (in the lead paragraphs) was initially given. The structure of this particular section seems a little incoherent. Maybe start with the lead as a structure organizer from this lead phrase in the article: “Biophysical research shares significant overlap with biochemistry, molecular biology, physical chemistry, physiology, nanotechnology, bioengineering, computational biology, biomechanics, developmental biology and systems biology." Take each of these as a section to expound upon.
PhoenyxFeatherz (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improvement 

message: "Biophysics covers all scales of biological organization, from molecular to organismic and populations. Biophysical research shares significant overlap with biochemistry, molecular biology, physical chemistry, physiology, nanotechnology, bioengineering, computational biology, biomechanics, developmental biology and systems biology."
I think the scope is too general and thus not informative especially for a introductory sentences. For example, here biophysics could be replaced with biochemistry or biostatistics and it would be more or less valid. Araz Zeyniyev (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  descriptive paragraph is too general