Talk:Physics: Difference between revisions
imported>William Weaver (propose change in intro) |
imported>Fred Salsbury No edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
On the map of General Systems Theory (GST), Biology is the next step in system complexity having components capable of accepting and delivering energy, information and material in a self-maintaining open system of the cell (the fundamental unit of life). The current introduction of the Physics article states "physics is the most basic of the physical sciences." While this view is shared in the GST, it really doesn't tell the reader what physics "is". --[[User:William Weaver|William Weaver]] 06:12, 18 December 2006 (CST) | On the map of General Systems Theory (GST), Biology is the next step in system complexity having components capable of accepting and delivering energy, information and material in a self-maintaining open system of the cell (the fundamental unit of life). The current introduction of the Physics article states "physics is the most basic of the physical sciences." While this view is shared in the GST, it really doesn't tell the reader what physics "is". --[[User:William Weaver|William Weaver]] 06:12, 18 December 2006 (CST) | ||
: I don't think it would be a good idea to mold the science articles around the Systems Theory model since that model is not well-accepted, and we shouldn't be imposing -- any more than is strictly necessary -- our own framework on science. | |||
Having wrote that, the statement that "Physics is the science of energy and matter" would be probably be a good start. [[User:Fred Salsbury|Fred Salsbury]] 06:22, 18 December 2006 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 06:22, 18 December 2006
Article revision
I just checked some of the revisions. I think it would help to understand what is going on as the article develops if a short rationale could be given as revisions are made....otherwise it's difficult to see the wood for the trees as it were. Thanks--luke 02:01, 13 November 2006 (CST)
- My overall aims have been to
- Improve the readability of the article.
- Remove random bits of information (like some seemingly randomly picked links.)
- remove the slight bias of the article toward astrophysics, particle and field theory (fields that most physicicsts don't work it)
- In several places, the field of physics as structured in an undergraduate curriculum is confused with physics as a discipline.
- Reduce some of the long lists.
- If you look at the Biology rewrite, they seem to be doing similar work.
Fred Salsbury 07:03, 13 November 2006 (CST)
Taking the lead from the Biology article, "Biology is the science of life." I would like to suggest this article could be structured around the opening statement of "Physics is the science of energy."
This follows from the Systems Theory model of the unverse wherein components are linked by the flow of three (3) fundamental items:
- Energy (Physics)
- Information (Computer Science)
- Material (Chemistry)
On the map of General Systems Theory (GST), Biology is the next step in system complexity having components capable of accepting and delivering energy, information and material in a self-maintaining open system of the cell (the fundamental unit of life). The current introduction of the Physics article states "physics is the most basic of the physical sciences." While this view is shared in the GST, it really doesn't tell the reader what physics "is". --William Weaver 06:12, 18 December 2006 (CST)
- I don't think it would be a good idea to mold the science articles around the Systems Theory model since that model is not well-accepted, and we shouldn't be imposing -- any more than is strictly necessary -- our own framework on science.
Having wrote that, the statement that "Physics is the science of energy and matter" would be probably be a good start. Fred Salsbury 06:22, 18 December 2006 (CST)