Talk:Physics/wip/Archive2

message: One of the most important contributions that the field of Physics has made to the world is the copious amount of mathematics (integral calculus, anyone?) that have been invented with the original intent of solving cutting-edge physics problems.  I think that this legacy is something that a lot of people that don't know much about physics are not really aware of, and a very important part of the field's effects on society.  I'm not sure how this should be presented, but I'd say that it's least as important as direct applications of physics, as these mathematics are used throughout all scientific fields, and even some less-scientific fields, like economics and sociology. - JustinWick 03:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, physical problems have on many occasions created new mathematical insights and this should be mentioned in the article. Thus, I suggest that the subsection theoretical physics of section 3: Major fields of current research should be changed to Mathematical and theoretical physics to incorporate this relationship. Also, since nobody has objected to Noetica's proposal for over a week, are we ready to assume no objection is extant? Krea 13:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics driven by physics? 

message: Some very good points there.  Perhaps I could jump back in with my own thoughts before we ask our Moderator to sum up?  Taking the issues in the order they've been mentioned over the last week or so:
1. Adding a section called Influence on Modern Society?  I can understand the intent, but am a little concerned we'd inevitably end up with a very POV essay.  Physics is pretty all-pervasive, actually, and such an essay could and probably would get very long and amorphous. Perhaps we could cover these concepts generally within the Applied physics section, after changing its name to something more generic like Applications of physics.
2.  Moving up the History section to come after the intro?  Personally, I feel it's better coming later on. A reader looking at this page and wanting to understand what physics is can then browse the Basic concepts in physics section, before getting bogged down in historical detail. Some of the history stuff - "natural philosophy" etc - is likely to be pretty confusing to a reader who doesn't (yet) have a grasp of even the basics.
3.  Delete 'current' from Major fields of current research.  Agreed.
4. Tables.  Not part of this discussion, yet. To be dealt with when we are addressing content.
5.  Foundations section?  Noetica's suggestions are good but unless I've misunderstood the structure proposed seems rather to cut across several other sections.  Let's broaden things out a bit by renaming the History section as Historical foundations of physics. 
:   1. Origins of physics (in ancient philosophy, etc.)
:: Fine.  Include in Historical foundations
:   2. detailed etymology 
:: Fine.  Include in Historical foundations
:   3. a sketch history of physics and adjacent sciences,
:: Fine.  Include in Historical foundations 
:   4. a broad and philosophically literate consideration of the nature of physics 
:: Not sure what's intended here.  Isn't that covered by the Basic concepts in physics section?
:   5. a working definition
:: Let's see how that fits in. It may turn out to be simplest to include the working definition up-front, as part of the lead paragraphs.
6.  Comprehensibilty by eleven year olds. I'm quite content if we can aim for that, but to allow for the fact that it may not always be possible.
7.  Mathematics driven by physics? This is an interesting idea that deserves an article in its own right.  We don't want to get into too much detail in this general article, particularly mathematical detail, and my suggestion is that we should include brief notes on this topic in the Historical foundations section, with cross-references to a more comprehensive article (once somebody has written one).
Are we getting close to some sort of consensus? --MichaelMaggs 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading towards some conclusions?