Hi.

There is physic, chemestry, biology, mathematic, genetic, and so
on.

What is the most important one. wich one has the best potential
to dramaticly affect our live in the next couple of decade ?

To answer this question, i asked myself, what is the primary need
for all life to exist ? Energy... for a start, no sun, no life on Earth.
what make us human so much more creative and enable us to
acheive this creation ? Mastering energy ! Fire is the fisrt form
of energy mastered by human thousand of years ago. This was
the first step, and what a step !!

Based on that, every field of science that can make us understand
more about different type of energy would be my own guess.

I let you develop the concept on this basis


Stef

Very good question, Stef. Lets see now, (mumbling) the most important field of science field of science field of science. hmmm.

Alchemy
Ha! Jk

hmmm
My opinion is astronomy. Our future is the universe. It is the doorway to it.

physics, no doubt

Computer science. Or as I sometimes call it, metascience. The notions of abstraction and emergent complexity are finally being explored by computer scientists, and will be, IMO, the greatest contribution to science, and will form the basis for a major bridge between the hard sciences and the 'softer' social sciences.

I think I have to agree with physicsforums.com on this one. It allows the understanding of forces and materials which allows us to construct those things we need or wish. Including energy...

I'm going with the flow, and saying physics. Pretty much every hard science, when distilled, will ultimately be physics.

Computer science: hmmm. Intriguing. Of course, if Microsoft have their way everything'll ultimately be visual programming (is Visual Basic programmer an oxymoron?).

hi, new to this board but im reasonably well read.

its difficult if not impossible to choose a field that is "most important." Who can judge whether a.i., nanotech, genetics, space exploration, or any other terrifically advanced scientific endevour will net the greatest achievments. however, i will say that i think research into M- theory (quantum theory, superstring theory) has the greatest potential to radically alter our current understanding of reality. something philosphers have been attempting to do for centuries. in that sense i choose physics as most important. Because as much as i want space exploration to one day find something out there, and as mush as i want computer science to one day create an intelligence other than us down here, and as much as i want to live a longer, more productive, and possibly never ending life. i mostly want to know just what makes reality tick.

What is the most important field in Science?

It's a toss up:

...the magnetic field -- without it's natural magentic field Earth would have far fewer scientists,

coupled with the electric field -- what could terrestrial science ever be without solar photons?

After that, physics...

"In science there is only physics, all the rest is stamp collecting." Ernest Rutherford, 1908

Good lord. Don't confuse programming with computer science. And certainly don't confuse programming with anything Microsoft does. That's like saying engineering is the same as physics (and in the MS case, like building with Lego is the same as architecture).

Pure computer science has strong roots in mathematics, philosophy, logic & information science and is steeped in formalism.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree strongly with the thoughts on physics. In fact, I'd suggest that physics is the least important of the sciences at the moment. The study of physics will lead to incremental improvements in the human experience, but will do nothing to revolutionize it.

<<... physics is the least important of the sciences...>>

Porfiry,

State your case so we can prove, on point, why you are so very wrong.

:p

And don't hide behind the skirtive missive "...at the moment...", nor confuse technology with Science.

Porfiry, I respect and agree with your view of computer science, and like you I also believe that it will revolutionize the human existence as we currently know it. Personally, I am of the opinion that physics will change us to a greater degree. But, I don’t hold that belief to the exclusion of any other discipline. You wrote:

"The study of physics will lead to incremental improvements in the human experience, but will do nothing to revolutionize it."

On this point, I couldn’t disagree with you more.

Among other things, quantum theory posits the existence of an infinity of alternative universes. if this were proven true, i believe the human experience would be altered dramatically. Our fundamental understanding of reality itself would be improved. Every child born after the changeover from quantum theory to quantum law would understand innately that human level intelligence is not unique or uncommon. Furthermore, those children will grow into the physicists of the future who tinker with matter and energy at the most basic level. I can only imagine where that will take humanity, but it do believe it will be revolutionary.

i'm not asking you to hold this view, just to respect the possibility of it. if you don't think its a possibility or you don't think physics is headed anywhere spectacular -- why not?

As far as this forum goes, it has to be physics. Your computer wouldn't exist without it!

Originally posted by James R
As far as this forum goes, it has to be physics. Your computer wouldn't exist without it!

If we are inside a dream,
then it can be vice versa.

physics in oxford dictionary is defined as that branch of science concerned with nature and properties of matter...

DERIVATIVES.
==============================================
Derived from physical thing.
==============================================
now computers have changed this a lot.the whole study of physics is based on an important fact :"seeing is believing" and with technologies like virtual reality one can never say.if one is just perceiving everything in form of electric signals then truths and reality can be made illusion and illusion a reality.
take for example marijuana as i have heard causes out of bdy experiences
now these experiences may seem real and whatever you experience here you"ll see it and believe(unless you"re out there to defy your own eyesight)the illusion,whereas this being just a dream thing.you can even pass a lie detector test for this.
============================================
so the point is that although physics is important very much for our benefit we cant just put computer science on second place.every study has to be given equal importance,actually all guys here should have said MATHEMATICS,then i wont disagree as physics is nothing but applied maths.

I would say Philosophy although I know many of you will realise, "But this is not a science!".

Well in fact it is, well at least in terms of the Ancient Greeks, and how Latin called Knowledge "SCIENTIA".

Without Philosophy there would be no debate on the theories behind things, there would be no map to follow and no plans made, with no methods to learn how to work around when you kind find a direct route. Philosophy is necessary with every science field and will attach itself to any new fields.

Originally posted by Porfiry
Good lord. Don't confuse programming with computer science. Sorry.
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree strongly with the thoughts on physics. In fact, I'd suggest that physics is the least important of the sciences at the moment. The study of physics will lead to incremental improvements in the human experience, but will do nothing to revolutionize it. The reason I cited physics is because everything else, from nanotech to bioengineering, is ultimately physics. In fact, in this context I'd be extremely reluctant to compare physics to any other hard science. To mangle your analogy, it'd be like comparing engineering to stress tolerances of rivets.

If I can't use physics as an answer, then I'd have to go with nanotech, purely for its potential rather than its current capabilites. While I'm always hesitant about using phrases like "nothing it can't do", in this case it seems to be justified.

Of course, any science that comes up with a way to stop people behaving like assholes would be worthy of note until the end of the universe.

--------------)NEW TREAD DIRECTION(------------

OK, I think that we could all agree that Physic is at the very
least a very important field of science that can be used
in many other, if not all, field of science.

Now we have physic on one side and many questions and
theories on the other side.

The new questions:


What is the most important aspect of physic ?

Again, Energy comme into my mind. E=MC2. E like Energy.

What are the most promising work in progess physic research
that adress the energy question at this time ?

What do you think will be the final frontier source of energy ?

How do you think unlimited energy availabily could affect human
civilisation and to what extent ?

With computer science advance and artificial intelligence,
unlimited energy enable us to create an vast cyborg army that
can not only automatise many basic human task like resources
collecting, garbage and recylcing, transportation and goods manipulation, harvesting and converting fruit, vegetable and
cereal, but also maintain and repair themself. The whole
manufacturing industrie could be 100% automatise. The list is limitless and impact on social life will be incredible. This is only one
case scenario. Imagine the rest...

To escape from this solar system, we will need WarpDrive like
engine. To warp space require an insane amount of energy.
We will need to find something so much powerfull that warping
space will be child play. More dramatic, we could make wormhole
to travel to the other side of the galaxy. Then again, we would
need the equivalent energy of many many stars to make one...

Warpdrive, wormhole, I know, it's still on the very edge of
theorical science for now. One thing is 100% sure, no matter
what we will find in the futur to get to other star, it will recquire
a crazy amount of energy.

It's not a matter of if, but when. It always did. It's not because
we don't know something that it is impossible. We will reach to
other stars and the only thing to prevent it to happen is our self
destruction, or maybe an asteroid...

Now, let's work at it !!


Steph

physics is nothing but applied maths

If that was true, physics would be called "Applied maths".

The difference between physics and maths is that physics relies on the real world as a check on its theories. You cannot know whether a physical theory is true or not until you compare it to observations of nature. But if you're locked in a room with pencil and paper, you can prove or disprove mathematical theorems. There need be no connection between maths and the real world.

Hi James R,

"The difference between physics and maths is that physics relies on the real world as a check on its theories. .... There need be no connection between maths and the real world."

Hence you could say that physics is mathematics applied to the real world :).

Bye!

Crisp

This thing called 'Computer Science' is not a Science. It is a technology.

Technology is Science applied.

The notion that CompSci is a basic science is humorous, at best.

:D

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree strongly with the thoughts on physics. In fact, I'd suggest that physics is the least important of the sciences at the moment. The study of physics will lead to incremental improvements in the human experience, but will do nothing to revolutionize it.

Hmm, what future developements in physics could revolutionize our way of living and seeing the world?

1) Faster than light travel (yes, its possible, we just don't understand how yet that's all).
2) Matter replication.
3) Nanotechnology (it's a branch of physics, just like many other fields).
4) Controlled antimatter reactions for use in anything from power plants to starships.
5) The understanding of exactly what happened in the big bang
6) The discovery of the most basic building blocks of matter (maybe strings?).
7) Formulating whether our universe is open, closed or right in between.

I'm sure there's many more, I'm just too tired to think right now =P

If you don't believe physics is the most important field, you have to at least admit it's one of them. Unless of course you want to stay on our own planet until we either destroy it ourselves or wait for the sun to nova.

Hi James R,
==============================================
Originally posted by James R


If that was true, physics would be called "Applied maths".

our proff.refers to it that way numerous of times.

The difference between physics and maths is that physics relies on the real world as a check on its theories. You cannot know whether a physical theory is true or not until you compare it to observations of nature

after all those quotings i still say SEEING MAY NOT BE BELIEVINGas we are enterining a computer simulated virtual world.

. But if you're locked in a room with pencil and paper, you can prove or disprove mathematical theorems.

if somethings IS proved theoritically it can be aplied.the only problem is our own inability to do that.if i disprove something mathematically,without any contradictions and paradoxes then it will not work practically,are trying to say that observations disprove maths?:confused:

]There need be no connection between maths and the real world
What do you think maths is? stupid sumations and that comercial profit loss thing only??,ever heard of a thing called CALCULUS??
All physics people are using it to find various things like velocity,acceleration,gradients,electric fields etc. those graphs we draw in physics,find slopes easily to determine relationships between two things ,dont you think maths is applied here.i can give you hundreds of examples.ever heard of FOURIOR THEOREM,FOURIOR TRANSFORMS,they are used in your electrodynamics for analysing of signals and circuits,LAPLACE TRANSFORMSetc even shortest paths algorithms are given by maths only.now can you say such a line again?maths what this world is all about.i may sound sentimental but i still say that it applied maths.
bye!.

Hi zion,

<i>after all those quotings i still say SEEING MAY NOT BE BELIEVING as we are enterining a computer simulated virtual world.</i>

That might well be the case, but it is a useless hypothesis from a scientific point of view. If no experiment can distinguish between a real and a simulated world, we may as well assume we are dealing with a real world, since we can't hope to do better than that.

<i>practically,are trying to say that observations disprove maths?:confused:</i>

Yes. Observations <i>can</i> show that the assumptions on which a mathematical theory of physics is based are incorrect. Garbage in, garbage out.

<i>What do you think maths is? stupid sumations and that comercial profit loss thing only??,ever heard of a thing called CALCULUS??</i>

Erm... yes, I've heard of it, and the other things you mentioned. Have you ever heard of the Riemann Zeta function? Or group theory? Or integration around poles in the complex plane? We can play this game if you like.

<i>maths what this world is all about.i may sound sentimental but i still say that it applied maths.</i>

Perhaps an example then. Before Kepler came along, people thought the planets moved around the sun (or Earth) in circles. All the maths of planetary motion was based on circles. Then, Kepler turned up and said "Hey guys! It's ellipses, I tell you!" All the maths had to change in light of the fact that the observations of the actual motions of the planets turned out to be better explained by elliptical maths than circular maths.

Was there anything wrong with the circular <i>maths</i>? No. It just had no connection to the physical world, which happens to work with ellipses (in this case).

See what I mean?

Originally posted by James R
Hi zion,

<i>after all those quotings i still say SEEING MAY NOT BE BELIEVING as we are enterining a computer simulated virtual world.</i>

That might well be the case, but it is a useless hypothesis from a scientific point of view. If no experiment can distinguish between a real and a simulated world, we may as well assume we are dealing with a real world, since we can't hope to do better than that.

<i>practically,are trying to say that observations disprove maths?:confused:</i>

Yes. Observations <i>can</i> show that the assumptions on which a mathematical theory of physics is based are incorrect. Garbage in, garbage out.

you are giving contradiction here James dear.when you say Mathematical theory,you are agreeing to the point of applied maths==physics.so our paradox is resolved.


<i>What do you think maths is? stupid sumations and that comercial profit loss thing only??,ever heard of a thing called CALCULUS??</i>

Erm... yes, I've heard of it, and the other things you mentioned. Have you ever heard of the Riemann Zeta function? Or group theory? Or integration around poles in the complex plane? We can play this game if you like.

sorry 'bout that,i think i was pretty impulsive:D.anyways i have heard of integration around poles in complex plane,,gruop theory,but not Zeta function.what is it?
<i>maths what this world is all about.i may sound sentimental but i still say that it applied maths.</i>

Perhaps an example then. Before Kepler came along, people thought the planets moved around the sun (or Earth) in circles. All the maths of planetary motion was based on circles. Then, Kepler turned up and said "Hey guys! It's ellipses, I tell you!" All the maths had to change in light of the fact that the observations of the actual motions of the planets turned out to be better explained by elliptical maths than circular maths.

Was there anything wrong with the circular <i>maths</i>? No. It just had no connection to the physical world, which happens to work with ellipses (in this case).

See what I mean?
well what Kepler did was with the help of maths only,i mean he disproved a theory with the help of mathematical calculations and his observations were pretty consistent with the calculations.(he did it without calculus,actually).any further correction would be welcome James.
bye!

<<...what Kepler did was with the help of maths only,i mean he disproved a theory with the help of mathematical calculations and his observations were pretty consistent with the calculations...>>


Kepler used mathematics to make sense of the recorded obervational data of Tycho Brahe, who hired him for the purpose.

Kepler's mathematical treatments of the data was important in revealing a new geometric paradigm for celestial mechanics, but his math could only be as good as Brahe's observational accuracy which was achieved by use of a new generation of non-optical observing instruments incorporating large, finely gradated scales capable of making minute angular measurements.

Mathematics is a very crucial science but it is afterall only a language. There are many mathematical terms and concepts that have no direct analog in non-mathematical reality.

Originally posted by Mr. G
[B
Kepler used mathematics to make sense of the recorded obervational data of Tycho Brahe, who hired him for the purpose.

[/B]
From Brocha's Brain of Carl Sagan(as written by him), Tycho Brahe was a good friend of his,when he died Kepler merely took away his data and later denied any involvment and even knowing of Tyacho brahe later,died very sadly later on.(insanely).So,i ask you Mr.G, how do you think Tycho Brahe knew that it was ellipse??He must have APPLIED some maths there to find it out isnt it?,i am still convinced that maths is relates to reality very finely.everything is mathematical.

Even father of science fiction ISAAC ASIMOV has written in "foundations edge " about HARI SELDON a scientist had expressed all future in form of equations and it was correct.second foundation the mystical one also believed that maths could explain various mentallly related phenomenon with its complex differential equations.

bye!.

<<...how do you think Tycho Brahe knew that it was ellipse??..>>

Brahe didn't know. Nor could he do the math. It was Kepler's job to do the mathematical reductions of the data.

<<...everything is mathematical..>>

Where is the natural occuring analog of the Zero? Which mathematical equation is best suited to describing love of one's puppy? What can mathematics say about the region inside a black hole's Schwarzchild radius?

THIS IS A FOLLOWUP FROM MY MESSAGE: WHAT IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT FIELD IN SCIENCE. THIS MESSAGE WAS A REPLY
IN THE FIRST TREAD, BUT NO ONE READ IT !!


OK, I think that we could all agree that Physic is at the very
least a very important field of science that can be used
in many other, if not all, field of science.

Now we have physic on one side and many questions and
theories on the other side.

The new questions:


What is the most important aspect of physic ?

Again, Energy comme into my mind. E=MC2. E like Energy.

What are the most promising work in progess physic research
that adress the energy question at this time ?

What do you think will be the final frontier source of energy ?

How do you think unlimited energy availabily could affect human
civilisation and to what extent ?

With computer science advance and artificial intelligence,
unlimited energy enable us to create an vast cyborg army that
can not only automatise many basic human task like resources
collecting, garbage and recylcing, transportation and goods
manipulation, harvesting and converting fruit, vegetable and
cereal, but also maintain and repair themself. The whole
manufacturing industrie could be 100% automatise. The list is
limitless and impact on social life will be incredible. This is only
one case scenario. Imagine the rest...

To escape from this solar system, we will need WarpDrive like
engine. To warp space require an insane amount of energy.
We will need to find something so much powerfull that warping
space will be child play. More dramatic, we could make wormhole
to travel to the other side of the galaxy. Then again, we would
need the equivalent energy of many many stars to make one...

Warpdrive, wormhole, I know, it's still on the very edge of
theorical science for now. One thing is 100% sure, no matter
what we will find in the futur to get to other star, it will recquire
a crazy amount of energy.

It's not a matter of if, but when. It always did. It's not because
we don't know something that it is impossible. We will reach to
other stars and the only thing to prevent it to happen is our self
destruction, or maybe an asteroid...

Now, let's work at it !!


Steph

Originally posted by Mr. G
[B<<...everything is mathematical..>>

Where is the natural occuring analog of the Zero? Which mathematical equation is best suited to describing love of one's puppy? What can mathematics say about the region inside a black hole's Schwarzchild radius? [/B]
ZERO...Hmm??let me say,
" no space " points to zero.photon's rest mass also:D .

Where can you find a photon at rest? ;)

Hey Mr G,

it doesnt rest on my lap i am sure.:D
Okay man cut it off:):),its just that i like maths a lot:),you win and i lose in the battle of words.KOOL?(positively i mean),but i am still convinced of my idea.(Stubborn,obstinate attitude you may call it).;)

For matter: Strong force energy. When the universe is long cold and dead -- thermally inactive -- the Strong force still will be binding quarks into protons and neutrons.

For spacetime: Planck time quantum foaming.

Personally,to be on safer side or rather to feel safer... i want to believe in pulsating hypothesis of universe.because that way it could never go on dead.isnt it?

Jesus!,i almost forgot! James hasnt come yet to answer,he"ll have his own set of bombs to throw on me.take it easy on me pal!
i am JUST this guy you know?;) :D

Zion,

It's not really about what you think, it's really about that you think. ;)

Being challenged is life, being agreed with, and thereafter getting comfortable with what you think, is deathful inbreeding.

Its the struggle, not the arrival. The only arrival we really know about is when we appear at our own death. No thanks. I don't want any part of that. :D

"What is the most important one. wich one has the best potential
to dramaticly affect our live in the next couple of decade ?"

here is a new idea (well who knows).
-> the most important is philosophy.

It also has been philosophy that has had the greatestinfluence on society until now. I see no reason why that should change.

Merlijn

It's funny you should say that I mentioned that Philosophy was a main candidate in the original thread that spawned this one :D

:) great.

As you know, I have been away for a while. So I haven't read that.

Am I the only one that caught that? Steph and Stef?

The sense sounded familiar ("Being challenged is life, being agreed with, and thereafter getting comfortable with what you think, is deathful inbreeding.")

Found what I was looking for, but not the author (for some reason believe it was C.P.Snow, author and physicist)Have you learned lessons only of those
who admired you, and were tender with
you, and stood aside for you?

Have you not learned great lessons from
those who braced themselves against you
and disputed the passage with you? Take care.

Walt Whitman.

Originally posted by Mr. G
Zion,

It's not really about what you think, it's really about that you think. ;)
Sure.iam sure.


The only arrival we really know about is when we appear at our own death. No thanks. I don't want any part of that. :D [/B]
"Ignorance is bliss" as they say Mr G.you dont wanna know about it because you are afraid.you are afraid of accepting.thats the most hard part i know of life.When James asked me about zeta function i accepted that i dinno about it.you dont wanna know any part of death?but i wanna know,i wanna know because perhaps that would explain why we are here.in this world,or why are we discussing,or why do we argue.if i would truely understand the world that is going to be not from you or any one else,but from my own death.off course that"ll take a lot of time,but knowing about others own experiences can really help.
at least its better than Aliens and UFOs.when you cant prove it completely,the point here is that you wanna know about things that may not exist and are part of your own halucinations,but you dont wanna know about inevitable.no,i wont accept that last sentence,it really gives a bad idea of what your philosophy is all about.believe me this would continue.you"ll reply,i"ll reply,we"ll argue.i am not afraid of arguements,but at some point someone has gotta let go.anyways have a nice day!
bye!

Originally posted by zion


...you dont wanna know any part of death?but i wanna know,i wanna know because perhaps that would explain why we are here...

So, what's keeping you from finding out? How about today?

Me? I have no reason to want to die. I didn't learn anything about anything before I was born, I can't imagine I'll learn anything about anything after I die, so I'm happy to remain alive as long as possible and to learn something new each day.

As for being fearful, before I was born I did not fear the possibility of never being alive so I can't imagine fearing being dead because I won't be noticing the condition when it befalls me.

Nor do I fearfully manufacturer intricate conceptual sauves to lessen the anticipation.

Originally posted by Mr. G


So, what's keeping you from finding out?

==============================================
Mr.G's replies,Science forums.
============================================== ;) :D
bye!

Originally posted by Mr. G
==============================================
Me? I have no reason to want to die.
==============================================

but you have to. sorry no one can ever help you.you cant change it. ehm,ehm,but if you BELIEVEthat thoughts can change the perceptions and reality as stryder mentioned,then i"ll accept the fact,as i KNOW that could happen,but you have several time denied this.

I didn't learn anything about anything before I was born,

How can you PROVE that?
==============================================

I can't imagine I'll learn anything about anything after I die

imagination is more important than knowledgeas our genius Albert einstein puts it.

fearing being dead because I won't be noticing the condition when it befalls me.

once again how do you JUST KNOW THAT?

bye!.