I see sub-atomic particles is studied as “Particle Physics”
If the study of the properties of elements, compounds, reactions etc are a field of Chemistry then why is the study of sub-atomic particles (quarks, neutrinos, gluons) and their properties mostly done by Physicists (Particle Physics)
?
In: 3
Chemistry studies interactions between elements and molecules and compounds. Chemistry is concerned about numbers of protons and electrons and their behavior, but the building blocks of protons and neutrons, that’s a different field.
Because it was more important to Physics.
Chemistry can be studied without needing to understand particles. The reactions they study don’t require a knowledge beyond atoms, the same way a chef needs to be able to cook a steak but not understand the reproductive system of a cow
But physicists kept finding things they couldn’t explain, and kept researching. They stumbled upon sub+atomic particles and kept studying them, and their interactions, to see what their existence meant for their theories. Eventually it grew into a field of study in its own right, and stayed with physics.
Chemistry studies interactions between elements and molecules and compounds. Chemistry is concerned about numbers of protons and electrons and their behavior, but the building blocks of protons and neutrons, that’s a different field.
Chemistry studies interactions between elements and molecules and compounds. Chemistry is concerned about numbers of protons and electrons and their behavior, but the building blocks of protons and neutrons, that’s a different field.
I would say it is in part the result of how it was discovered. The first detected subatomic particle is an election. It comes from research in electricity and magnetic. That was a field that was considered physics before.
If the subatomic particle was a result of what was at the time considered chemistry that might be what is considered today.
At least historically there is a large difference in the approach of physics and chemistry and in it particle physics it one more of physics, not chemistry
A bit simplified is physics has a lot of theatrical models but from some observation that is generalized and results in testable prediction for experiments. experimental confirmation can take decades until the technology is advanced enough
Chemistry the theory is often later and is made to describe what already has been observed in the label and extend it to a similar situation.
Today with fast computers it i possible to make models in chemistry that are good at predicting the real result of novel compounds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_chemistry_and_physics
Because it was more important to Physics.
Chemistry can be studied without needing to understand particles. The reactions they study don’t require a knowledge beyond atoms, the same way a chef needs to be able to cook a steak but not understand the reproductive system of a cow
But physicists kept finding things they couldn’t explain, and kept researching. They stumbled upon sub+atomic particles and kept studying them, and their interactions, to see what their existence meant for their theories. Eventually it grew into a field of study in its own right, and stayed with physics.
Because it was more important to Physics.
Chemistry can be studied without needing to understand particles. The reactions they study don’t require a knowledge beyond atoms, the same way a chef needs to be able to cook a steak but not understand the reproductive system of a cow
But physicists kept finding things they couldn’t explain, and kept researching. They stumbled upon sub+atomic particles and kept studying them, and their interactions, to see what their existence meant for their theories. Eventually it grew into a field of study in its own right, and stayed with physics.
I would say it is in part the result of how it was discovered. The first detected subatomic particle is an election. It comes from research in electricity and magnetic. That was a field that was considered physics before.
If the subatomic particle was a result of what was at the time considered chemistry that might be what is considered today.
At least historically there is a large difference in the approach of physics and chemistry and in it particle physics it one more of physics, not chemistry
A bit simplified is physics has a lot of theatrical models but from some observation that is generalized and results in testable prediction for experiments. experimental confirmation can take decades until the technology is advanced enough
Chemistry the theory is often later and is made to describe what already has been observed in the label and extend it to a similar situation.
Today with fast computers it i possible to make models in chemistry that are good at predicting the real result of novel compounds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_chemistry_and_physics
I would say it is in part the result of how it was discovered. The first detected subatomic particle is an election. It comes from research in electricity and magnetic. That was a field that was considered physics before.
If the subatomic particle was a result of what was at the time considered chemistry that might be what is considered today.
At least historically there is a large difference in the approach of physics and chemistry and in it particle physics it one more of physics, not chemistry
A bit simplified is physics has a lot of theatrical models but from some observation that is generalized and results in testable prediction for experiments. experimental confirmation can take decades until the technology is advanced enough
Chemistry the theory is often later and is made to describe what already has been observed in the label and extend it to a similar situation.
Today with fast computers it i possible to make models in chemistry that are good at predicting the real result of novel compounds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_chemistry_and_physics
Chemistry, chemical reactions, don’t care about atom’s nucleus composition or other particles, only about the electrons around it.
Sure, the molecular weight of atoms matters too, but it doesn’t really care of what is made of.
Latest Answers