Editorial: Editor's challenge in interdisciplinary physics: what is interdisciplinary physics?
Alex Hansen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2024.1495972
IF: 3.718
2024-10-15
Frontiers in Physics
Abstract:Is such a description of physics compatible with seeing science as a landscape, where each point in the landscape is some scientific question and the different scientific fields such as chemistry, biology etc. are countries will well-defined borders? I would say no. In this picture, physics has become more of a "transnational organization" than a country. Perhaps -with a risk of pushing this picture way too far -one may think of the Catholic church that both is a transnational organization and having its own territory, the Vatican.A definition as the one proposed for physics is only useful if it makes it possible to answer the question, is this physics or not. For this to be possible, we need to describe what is meant by "a method to approach scientific problems." As I wrote in 2014 (Hansen, 2014), the physics approach may be characterized by it being hierarchical. By this I mean an approach that starts by posing more general questions and then proceed towards more specific questions. For example, answer the question "what is a metal" before answering the question "what is copper." Physics is centered around experiments. That is, posing direct questions to Nature. The better designed an experiment is, the clearer will the answer be. Examples of such experiments are those of Ørsted, Ampère and Faraday in electromagnetism, conducted around 1820-1830. In 1861-1862 James Clerk Maxwell published his synthesis of these experiments expressed as four equations. These four equations account for essentially all of electromagnetism. The experiments offered glimpses of the nature of electromagnetism from different perspectives. Maxwell turned them into a complete description with power of prediction. The key word here is synthesis. The synthesis of the experiments on how liquids behave into the Navier-Stokes equations, presented by Navier in 1822 and Stokes in 1845, is another example of the same process.Superficially, these two examples seem to go against the claim that physics is centered around a hierarchical approach to nature. Are not the theories of Maxwell and Navier-Stokes more general than the preceding experiments? My answer is no. The experiments and the final synthesis are examples of general questions: what the nature of electricity is and what is the nature of flowing liquids. Only after such a synthesis could one invent the radio.But do we not find the same type of hierarchical approach in other fields? For example, do we not need plate tectonics before understanding the Himalayas in geology? Plate tectonics is a more general concept than the Himalayas. And in biology, do we not need the Darwin theory of evolution before we can begin to understand the increasing pesticide resistance? The answers are yes, yes and yes. These are examples of the same hierarchical approach. So, is the conclusion that these are examples of physics even though they appear in geology and biology? No, nobody would accept this. And the conclusion must be that defining physics in this way is too superficial. But, at the same time, physics has changed character and is invading its neighbors. We need a definition of physics that goes beyond "the study of matter, energy, and the interaction between them." Perhaps the question of defining physics in a way that distinguishes it from other fields is an unnecessary question? Perhaps it should not even be posed? Another division is the distinction between basic and applied research. The book Cycles of Invention and Discovery (Narayanamurti & Odumosu, 2016) discusses at length the viewpoint first heralded by Vannevar Bush that such a division is harmful to science. It prevents progress by introducing artificial boundaries that impede collaboration. Is it the same here? Forget about the boundaries between different disciplines, collaborate across these artificial boundaries. Different disciplines are taught in different ways, with different emphasis on the different aspect of a given problem. Combine them and prosper scientifically!In fact, what I just did was to argue for the importance of interdisciplinarity -and this means removing the artificial boundaries between disciplines.So, my views have evolved in the ten years since my 2014 paper (Hansen, 2014). In another ten years, who knows what they will be. This Research Topic contains four papers. Two of them provide examples of interdisciplinary research and two of them take a step back and attempt to put interdisciplinary physics in context. Here is a synopsis of each. Serge Galam's paper Physicists, non-physical topics and interdisciplinarity (Galam, 2022) is a thoughtful discussion of what physics is today and in particular, the role of interdisciplinary physics. His definition of physics is "that which physicists do." This is fully in line with my thoughts expressed contortedly in the present editorial. Then he turns to interdisciplinary physic. He writes "Interdisciplinary physics -Abstract Truncated-
physics, multidisciplinary