<p>^ lol why. I would like to learn my misunderstanding :)</p>
<p>jwxie, that’s party the point. If we understood the physical universe 100% that would make us God, not humans. </p>
<p>I disagree that physics is a branch of philosophy. What came first? Nature? Or man’s contemplation of nature? Philosophy is basically man trying to understand the physical nature around him, so I would think philosophy would best be thought of as interconnected and even dependent on physics as without physics there is nothing to contemplate.</p>
<p>yes most of the particles within the standard model aren’t based on mathematics pulled out of some guys butt. They are the product of observational experimentation done by particle colliders’. I.E we have physically observed their existence. except for a few here in there, but thats what cern is trying to do</p>
<p>“Why all the hate on sports management? You guys still bitter about the way they treated you in high school?”</p>
<p>Because sports management isn’t a real degree. It exists so that college athletes (in popular sports)–whose real job is not to be a student but to play sports and put butts in seats–can at least say they are getting a degree. Source: my dad, who was a star football athlete who was offered free rides at Purdue, UCLA, Stanford, etc.</p>
<p>iambored, how can you hate on economics majors? Sure, the ones coasting through it in hopes of getting a decent job are annoying. I hate when somebody says they’re an econ major, and when I ask who their favorite economist is, they can’t even name any. But economics–real economics, not the parlor trick economics finance companies do–is very important. I’m a physics and engineering major, and even I have to say that Adam Smith and David Ricardo’s insights are arguably more important to society than were Newton’s, and that the insights of Hayek and Friedman were more important to society than those of Einstein, Bohr, or Heisenberg.</p>
<p>^And yet the majority of schools that offer bachelor’s degrees in Sports Management are not even D1 in popular sports (football and basketball). </p>
<p>Source: [Sport</a> Management Programs: United States | North American Society for Sport Management](<a href=“http://www.nassm.com/InfoAbout/SportMgmtPrograms/United_States]Sport”>http://www.nassm.com/InfoAbout/SportMgmtPrograms/United_States)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do the students who finish these programs not get a diploma? What constitutes a real degree? Is it whatever passes the TomServo checklist for real degrees?</p>
<p>If we don’t know a single damn thing about it, how can we know it is even out there or that it certainly can be explained by physics. Nature involves unknowable, undeterminable, unpredictable events. Equations do not account for random changes nor for our thoughts or why we do certain things we do or even how the hell our eyes work.</p>
<p>Of course there is physics in medicine… I’m pretty certain I made sure not to say the opposite - hm… actually I’m pretty sure I said this very thing…? (Annoyed sarcasm :))</p>
<p>Again, physics only explains the how in a completely technical manner, but not the why. Sure X got from point A to point B which induced the the effect K, but why did it do that?</p>
<p>Short response, sorry, I’m on an iTouch.</p>
<p>So how do you guys feel about environmental engineering? I’m curious because everyone seems to regard it as a soft engineering major.</p>
<p>I’m a sophomore economics major. I’ve only taken intro to micro and macro and so far and the only economists I am really familiar with are Adam Smith, John Keynes, Greg Mankiw, and Paul Krugman. And when I say familiar I mean that I know what their general philosophy and beliefs are, not that I could go into detail about their work. I’m also aware of Milton Friedman, but Mankiw’s intro textbooks only briefly mention him. I’m always reading about economic and public policy topics, but it’s from online blogs like Andrew Sullivan, Ezra Klein, and Matt Yglesias.</p>
<p>Physics does too explain the why. Like WHY did my hand hurt when I hit into the wall? Because of the third law of mutual force, that’s why.</p>
<p>Immotion, those guys aren’t even economists. Mankiw maintains a blog (I don’t read it), even many Krugman fans will admit he’s pretty much abandoned economics for politics, Keynes has been utterly discredited empirically and his ideas only persist for political reasons, I strongly suggest you read up on Hayek and Friedman. A great book giving an overview of the history of economic thought from Smith to modern times is “New Ideas From Dead Economists.”</p>
<p>Some good links:</p>
<p>[Friedrich</a> August Hayek: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty](<a href=“http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Hayek.html]Friedrich”>Friedrich August Hayek - Econlib)
[Milton</a> Friedman: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty](<a href=“http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Friedman.html]Milton”>Milton Friedman - Econlib)
[EconLog</a> | Library of Economics and Liberty](<a href=“http://econlog.econlib.org/]EconLog”>http://econlog.econlib.org/)
[Cafe</a> Hayek ? where orders emerge](<a href=“http://cafehayek.com/]Cafe”>http://cafehayek.com/)</p>
<p>If nothing else, even if you hate every word you read, at least you have a broader view of economics beyond Samuelson’s macro voodoo.</p>
<p>I personally do not respect a degree conferred on somebody who has not undertaken any serious scholarly activity. Sports management is one of those mickey mouse degrees that I just can’t take seriously, and I’m not alone. That it fulfills the bare technical requirements of a degree (classrooms, chalk, diplomas, syllabi, etc.) is beside the point. It’s like calling John Cage’s 4’33" a musical piece.</p>
<p>Inmotion12, what in the world are you talking about? You must understand how to apply the concepts correctly with the given how vs. why situation.</p>
<p>Why did you bang your hand against the wall? </p>
<p>Not all of nature is tangible, and this is the primary basis of the point. And I’m not talking about gravity and other non-tangibles that are explained by physics (even though gravity is still not). Thought is one such example (of many); certainly thought is a part of nature is it not?</p>
<p>Physics aims to reveal the glorious beauty of the fundamental laws that govern our everyday (as well as distant) lives (aka natural phenomenon), but it doesn’t aim to describe other certain complex and bewildering “natural” occurrences (aka not all of “nature”).</p>
<p>@ swineflu
You probably know MUCH MUCH more than I do 
and I appreciate you take your time to give your thoughts to me, because I love physics.</p>
<p>Well, my point is that most of the elementary particles that we have “observed” through experiments such as the CERN project are based on the results and calculations that the physicists had done. For example, 2 + x = 3, x can be either +1 or |± 1|. Well, in high school our teacher just kept it simple that at the end of the result, the physicists just knew that those -1/2 and 1/2 had to add up, in the case of spin up and down. </p>
<p>These are mathematics results. Their existences are proved either directly, or indirectly through different experimental techniques. Their existences were so short-lived, or barely said to be exist. So as much as we can say about their existences, many remain hypothetical, which are beyond the standard model.</p>
<p>And why is physics a philosophy? Well, if we think of philosophy as reasoning, and if we can put our world into mathematics form, then physics and mathematics are the tools we use to reason and suggest the world we live in. The idea of having a unified field theory is not to produce the greatest Nobel physicist(s) of all time. Rather, to reason whether we can unified those four forces together, and if we could, then we can continue to move on to reason other unknown questions, such as the dark matters.</p>
<p>Can we ever reach to the last question? Well, we know we can’t. It is very possible that there is a missing force, or missing quantity that prevent thousands of brilliant physicists from finishing the unified field theory. </p>
<p>At Einstein’s time, nuclear force has not yet been discovered. But at his time, numerous versions of unified theory had been attempted. Some of them required a lot of modifications and additional constants, which Einstein found odd and ugly.</p>
<p>I think physics and mathematics are really cool courses to learn, if you think of it as a philosophy course. When you sit on a train, and you start wondering how much in nanosecond has the clock inside the train delay (slower) than the clock as observe by the person on the platform?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh knock it off. This has nothing to do with my bf. It was just a question I was curious about.</p>
<p>TomServo,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Disagree…to a certain extend. Some people actually pick those “easy” majors because they are interested in the subject matter and have a passion for their corresponding fields, and there is nothing wrong with that. Yes, you’ll have that dumb Communications major who likes to party all the time, but you can’t even say that that generalization is applicable to the majority of students, particularly if you haven’t met/interacted with all of them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, I disagree. That would be like saying every single person who is going into Engineering is doing so for the money and air of prestige that Engineering has amongs other majors. There are some people who go into Engineering because they like it. Why, I have no f-ing clue, lol.</p>
<p>Besides, in many jobs, having a college degree is a MUST. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I will agree with you on this.</p>
<p>Personally I don’t respect any degree over another really. Really need to look at the individual… and if they put serious effort in something they like to then they are probably going to get my respect… whether they have a degree or not.</p>
<p>physicists look down on everyone,except Math majors,who…</p>
<p>PrincessBride, I think you misunderstood me. I made it clear that I respect any serious scholar.</p>
<p>Physics can’t explain behavior. </p>
<p>Physics can’t explain how something that had a .000x% chance of happening, happened (life, the universe, nerds getting some, the like).</p>
<p>Regardless, the importance is that all these disciplines keep on trying to explain.</p>