Content, or lack thereof, goes here

The traditional view of a physicist is someone scribbling unintelligible equations on a chalkboard, with no shortage of Greek letters; and the traditional view of a chemist is someone wearing a white lab coat and goggles, swirling a flask of colored liquid behind an elaborate setup. During my time at Amherst, I have done my fair share of both. I have taken classes from both the chemistry and the physics departments. In that time, I have come to realize that the material overlaps to a much greater degree than I had previously thought. I am referring mostly to things like quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, and thermodynamics. But of course, the differences, too, abound. While I respect the physics department and physicists to a great extent, I have definitely found my niche in chemistry.

One of the most significant differences is not scientific, rather it is educational. Physics takes a bottom-up approach to teaching, and chemistry takes a top-down. Introductory physics classes teach the fundamentals–Newtonian mechanics and Maxwellian electrodynamics. It makes sense to start here; these represent the start of the field of physics. But most of this material turns out to be useless later on; it is either expanded upon or replaced entirely better theories. Of course it is necessary to understand the basics (and their shortcomings) in order to understand why the current theories and techniques are the way they are. Chemistry is just the opposite. Introductory chemistry classes draw from the most modern theories, teaching to apply the easiest to understand results. Later on, all the gaps are filled in and those results are proved and derived. Upper level physics takes on the attitude “everything you learned last year was wrong, here’s the right way to do it”, while upper level chemistry takes on the attitude “everything you learned last year was right, and here’s where it all came from (and a whole lot more you can do with it)”.

A major scientific difference between physics and chemistry has to do with their goals. Physics seeks to understand the laws and principles governing the behavior of the natural world. They keep looking at smaller and smaller things, postulating theories upon theories, some of which, someday, might be proved. All theories are valid, as long as the math works out. Chemistry observes the behavior of the natural world, and then attempts to understand what it has just seen with a theory or a model. For this reason, while chemists and physicists might agree on a certain theory (I’ll use the example of quantum theory), they have completely different ideas about what to do next. A physicist looks at quantum theory and says, “Aha, hydrogen atom. Good.” and then moves on to quantum chromodynamics, leptons, strange quarks, and lots of other strange things. A chemist looks at quantum theory and says, “But wait, most of the stuff we see is not hydrogen atoms. What then?” and moves on to spectroscopy and perturbation theory. Physics always looks ahead to the next step, often without waiting for experiment to catch up. Chemistry is more cautious–it rigorously tests theory with experiment, and only proceeds when experiment has disproved theory. But more importantly, chemistry is much more interested in the utility of theory than physics is. Now that we’ve got the theory, the chemist asks, how can we use it to predict the behaviors of systems we hadn’t considered before? and the spectroscopist is born. Physics always has its foot on the gas, it won’t pull over for directions even when lost. Physics theory thus has climbed to a point where it is basically inaccessible to someone without extensive training in the particular subfield. This is probably the reason why physics is often seen as the loftiest of the sciences–because it is the most obscure and esoteric. While physics might require much more abstract skills like mathematics, you’d be hard pressed to find a physicist that can interpret the infrared spectrum of an organic molecule.

(A stray thought: Physics is like the wise child in the Passover seder, wanting to know everything, without regard. “What are the statutes, the laws, the ordinances…?” Chemistry is the wicked child–he wants to know what the point is, why we should care. “What does all this mean to you…?”)

I do not necessarily believe that physics is inherently less useful a scientific pursuit than chemistry, nor am I any less interested in the scientific questions it raises. However, for the time being, I’m quite satisfied to study chemistry in school and read about physics in books.

And by the way, chemistry’s got plenty of Greek letters too.

As one of Amherst’s few hockey fans, I must express my regret that this finest of sports is brushed under the astroturf as it were to such an extent.

A successful hockey team balances talent, speed, power, and range of ability like no other sport. Unlike basketball, where a talented player or two can carry a team, hockey is a true team sport, with each player necessarily contributing equally. For that reason, fundamentals are key. Sloppy play is not rewarded by million-dollar endorsement deals. Baseball and football are (dreadfully slow and) games of situations. Each move is deliberated and chosen to fit the situation of the moment. Hockey is much more transient. There are situations just the same, but the players must be able to adapt to the situation without the plays being called from the sideline or the dugout. Soccer is like hockey, but much more dull.

Why No One Likes Hockey

I believe the learning curve for hockey is much greater than for other sports. Even if you’re not sure of all the rules or the subtleties of the game, most other sports have some continual or frequent viewer appeal. Baseball has hits and steals, basketball has baskets and fouls, football has tackles and touchdowns. And it’s even more pleasing when these are done with well. Hockey, it seems, has a bunch of guys slapping at a rubber puck with sticks, mostly missing it. Let me try to explain. Most of the “plays” that happen in hockey are done by multiple players, and what happens away from the puck is just as important (if not more important) than what happens to it. (This is also why watching hockey on TV is no substitute for seeing it live–it is usually impossible to watch a play develop because the camera is focused on the puck. Because of this, a goal almost always seems like a surprise.) Even when it is possible to watch a play develop, it usually happens quickly, and it takes experience in the viewer to identify it. Hence the learning curve.

The Playoffs

The NHL playoffs is currently in the second round. There are 8 teams left, 4 from the West and 4 from the East. Teams are eliminated by best-of-seven series. The playoffs have truly been exciting thus far. Fortunately, the playoff games are (almost) all broadcast on cable, so us few fans of the sport can enjoy it.

A Final Thought:

On Saturday, The New York Times, a periodical representing a city whose team is currently in the playoffs, did not cover the sport at all. At least the scores were reported–listed, along with the previous day’s other sporting events such as fishing and high school volleyball–but the editors could not even have been bothered to put in the scores from the previous day! One game from the previous day, by the way, was played (and nearly won) by the New York Rangers.

If You’re Interested:

At the beginning of the second round, I made predictions as to what the outcomes of the 4 semifinal series would be. These predictions are in the form of a response to my brother’s predictions, which you can see here.

My predictions:

Detroit Red Wings/Colorado Avalanche: I disagree about Detriot/Colorado. Going into the playoffs, I gave Nashville more credit than you did, and I don’t think Detroit losing two games is evidence of them slipping. Watch the Red Wings step it up, even against an historically surprising team. Prediction: Detroit 4-2.

San Jose Sharks/Dallas Stars: San Jose will womp Dallas. They have been riding Roenick but the rest of their front line will come alive. Prediction: San Jose 4-2.

Montreal Canadiens/Philadelphia Flyers: I was very surprised about the Flyers/Caps. The Caps were completely dominating in the third period and OT before they took an unfortunate penalty. If it were not for that, they would have sealed it in another few minutes. Prediction: Montreal 4-1.

Pittsburgh Penguins/New York Rangers: I agree, this one is difficult to call. After Pittsburgh waltzed through Ottawa, they will face their first real challenge of the playoffs only to see New York playing cleaner and better. Prediction: New York 4-3.

New York’s luck will end there. In the conference finals, they will face the superior Canadiens and lose in 5 or 6 games. San Jose/Detroit in the conference finals is too close to call. (Although I would like San Jose to win it all as well, I do not share your optimism. In the finals, Montreal would put up a good fight against either San Jose or Detroit.)

Finally:

If you wish to be enlightened about some of the cultural differences between Canada (whose interest in hockey has always been strong) and China (whose interest in hockey is waxing), viewed from the cultural context of the United States, read this amusing post.