Physics is irrelevant?!
- Thread starter randomic
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Much as I wish to not offend your profession, this is a point that's crossed my mind. Do we -really- need to know WHY things have mass, or what all kinds of subatomic particles exist?
Stuff will still have mass even if we don't know why; the rules that govern everything will still work as they do even if we don't know how to put them down on paper (If that's even, in the end, possible).
And while some of our brightest midns look for the answers to these questions and others like them, I can't help but feel that they are and the resources they are using are being wasted when we have more pressing problems that needs the attention of an agile mind. Stuff that might kill us all- and surivival will always be more relevant and more valuable, both on the indivudual scale and the scale of our species, than aquisition of knowledge.
Just my two bits. It's all subject to change with sufficient evidence.
Stuff will still have mass even if we don't know why; the rules that govern everything will still work as they do even if we don't know how to put them down on paper (If that's even, in the end, possible).
And while some of our brightest midns look for the answers to these questions and others like them, I can't help but feel that they are and the resources they are using are being wasted when we have more pressing problems that needs the attention of an agile mind. Stuff that might kill us all- and surivival will always be more relevant and more valuable, both on the indivudual scale and the scale of our species, than aquisition of knowledge.
Just my two bits. It's all subject to change with sufficient evidence.
I would say that computers make the world a better place to live. Probably the biggest jump in computing came from the transistor. Transistors are made by placing semiconductors together. The way semiconductors work can only be described by Quantum Mechanics. Now I don't know how quantum mechanics was really thought up at first but I'd be willing to bet that it was simply someone asking "why?". For example, "Why does the Sun fuse protons together in its core even though it's not hot enough for the fusion of hydrogen to occur?" and "Why are bin bags opaque in the visible spectrum but not in thermal infra-red?"Karlaxx said:
See where I'm coming from? It doesn't need to have a pre-designated purpose to be investigated. In fact, if everything needed a reason to be studied first then progress would be far slower.
For this I offer a great quote from the great Richard Feynman: "Physics is like sex; there's a practicle reason, but that's not why we do it." The things have mass and subatomic particles things will be of use some years from now (as in, several dozen deacades at least).Karlaxx said:
Knowing them allows us to utilize them and prevents others from using it to control us. When they're unknowns, it allows us to be controlled by others who manipulate our fears of the unknown.Karlaxx said:
On another note, there's a lot more to physics than what most people have discussed here. I'm pretty sure physics is plenty relavent when the very act of posting in this thread requires the use of some fairly recent discoveries in physics.
The whole idea of theoretical physics is to give the most conclusive answer to the question that is: Why? And we'll try to figure this out for as long we'll exist, being the curious species we are.
For a more practical view: Me and my mates just built an awesomely good and cheap sound system, using the basic physics we were taught in primary and secondary education.
For a more practical view: Me and my mates just built an awesomely good and cheap sound system, using the basic physics we were taught in primary and secondary education.
Yeah, I'm a little too out of touch with what physics or any of its myraid subsects do to really argue anything. And in retrospect, you're right; we wouldn't have gotten anywhere without certain people asking The Big Question: "Why?"Pingieking said:
'Least that's outta the way.
I haven't read all of the discourse on this thread yet, but it seems pretty cut and dried.
After a year or two of graduation... Call him, and ask him how it feels to be a Janitor (Which is basically all a philosophy degree prepares you for).
After a year or two of graduation... Call him, and ask him how it feels to be a Janitor (Which is basically all a philosophy degree prepares you for).
He isn't a scientific thinker. The regular folk usually aren't which is why scientists do important things and they do normal things. Apply this logic to the situation. Science is the process of every lie that we have to learn so that we can eventually get to the truth.
This is the usual kind of crap people go on with when they are "Right" and YOU are the one who just can't see the logic; Vis, Creationism Vs. Evolution, Religion Vs. Atheism, Communism Vs. People who insist on less stupid ideas, etc. etc.
This is the usual kind of crap people go on with when they are "Right" and YOU are the one who just can't see the logic; Vis, Creationism Vs. Evolution, Religion Vs. Atheism, Communism Vs. People who insist on less stupid ideas, etc. etc.
If physics is irrelevant, then the Mythbusters wouldn't spend so much time making it fun. Are you (or rather, your friend) going to tell me that the Mythbutsers are wasting their time?
I suppose there are also practical things to physics (for instance, computer chips and things all work on very complex, high-level physics).
I suppose there are also practical things to physics (for instance, computer chips and things all work on very complex, high-level physics).
Albeit a very, very deep, interesting-sounding janitor.Tyburn Cross said:
I'm into political, philosophical and social studies and I think Physics is VERY important to the human race (though I myself can only "admire" the scientific community and not really partake). Anyone intelligent enough to major and continue active research in that field (Physics,Astro-Physics,Quantum Physics ect) has my respect.
very true, that would be another example of chaos theory; although it might be safer to assume that the differing results were due to human error, rather than the chaotic structure and nature of the universe undermining itself to create a local anomaly that changed the paper length between measurements.randomic said:
another interesting, and tangentially related idea, is the concept of observation affecting result; the most obvious example of which being that in order to follow the path of an electron orbiting an atom completely accurately, you have to bombard it with enough radiation to actually alter its orbital path; hence why the current model of the atom comprises of electron "clouds" showing where electrons probably are to combat this quantum uncertainty.
interesting stuff. completely off topic though lol.
Check out Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, it's even less logical than you've stated there! I think one way of illustrating it is to think of measuring the speed of a car with a camera. If you take one picture, you can tell it's position but not its momentum. If you take 2 in quick succession you can now measure its momentum but you can't say where it is.4fromK said: