Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum What is the goal of Astronomy?

"Astronomy, which etymologically means "law of the stars", (from Greek: αστρονομία = άστρον + νόμος) is a science involving the observation and explanation of events occurring outside Earth and its atmosphere. It studies the origins, evolution, physical and chemical properties of objects that can be observed in the sky (and are outside the earth), as well as the processes involving them" further, "modern astronomy concerns itself much more with trying to observe and understand the actual physical nature of celestial objects?what makes them "tick".
Fine.
Is there a difference between the goals of astonomy and physics, or are they one and the same? If physics seeks a "law of everything" then how much interplay does astronomy have with physics?
Sincerely,

Astronomy provides observations at larger than local scales and energies. Astronomy feeds physics and cosmology, e.g.,

http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries

"In fact, many physicists take the position that physics is the only fundamental science. Their argument runs as follows: all sciences--biology, chemistry, geology, etc.--are concerned with matter; all matter is composed of atoms; physics describes the dynamics and internal configurations of atoms. Extension of this physico-centric view can result in profound philosophical consequences. For example, if one accepts that the human brain controls all human behavior, and if one accepts that the brain is composed entirely of atoms whose behavior is completely described by laws of physics, then one may reasonably question whether a person has the free will to control his behavior. Nevertheless it is not the task of physics to answer philosophical questions."

"In physics a theory of everything (TOE) is a theory that unifies the four interactions of nature: gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force. There has been progress toward a TOE in unifying electromagentism and the weak nuclear force in an electroweak unified field theory and in unifying all of the forces except for gravity (which in the present theory of gravity general relativity is not a force) in grand unified theory. One missing piece in a theory of everything involves combining quantum mechanics and general relativity into a theory of quantum gravity."

Fine.

So if a "universal law" that explains the universe in an equation exists...then there is no "free will" because everything is pre-determined in a mathematical formula?

"It is not the task of physics to answer philosophical questions".

Why not? Is there no spontaneity in human behavior because of a universal equation? Does not physics and philosophy intersect??
Sincerely,

?What is the goal of astronomy??

Possibly I do not see this as serious a question as you all do. Physics is a concept and a function in its own right with a specific goal. Astronomy is a science unique unto itself. Astronomy, for simple stargazing has no dependence on physics. You could locate and name all the objects that are in the universe with out reliance on physics. The interdependence of the two occurs when you try to explain what you see in the universe. Without the benefit of physics we would have a very pretty picture but a lifeless one.

Ever since childhood I have been concerned with the lack of an ?overall? scientific category that functioned to bring together all the sciences so we could greatly increase advances that would apply to the many different fields being studied and benefit each other. A formidable task but worthwhile.

Jim Wood

There are some venues in which scientists from diverse fields can come together. Originally cybernetics was such a field, nowadays complexity research is another. In the early days of modern science, journals were not so specialized as they are now...and scientists from all over published regardless of their subject.

Off topic: the topic reminds me of a saying by a famous computer scientist, Edsgar Dijkstra, who said, "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."

First of all folks, I think that there is a little bit of confusion about astronomy.

As far as physicists and mathematicians are concerned, astronomy is the same as celestial mechanics, i.e. somethings that stops at Newton's and Kepler's laws, calculating orbits, predicting eclipses, this kind of stuff. This branch is pretty much dead from the reasearcher viewpoint, since from early on it has evolved towards a calculational discipline.

As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between the goals of "astronomy" and the goals of physics. The Universe is just another source of experimental evidence, should we be able to gather it.

Mung: So if a "universal law" that explains the universe in an equation exists...then there is no "free will" because everything is pre-determined in a mathematical formula?"

Not necessarily. Think about thermodynamics and statistics. Thermodynamic laws ignore the microscopic behavior of the systems it studies.

When it comes to stellar and up to galactic details, like formation of stars, planetary systems, etc, this commes under the incidence of what it is called astrophysics. You know, luminosities, Herzsprung-Russell diagrams and similar issues.

Once you go beyond galactic scale, towards the large structure of the Universe, the discipline in charge is cosmology (structure formation, Big Bang, Big Crunch, inflation, etc).

Mung:"It is not the task of physics to answer philosophical questions".

Well, physics is in fact natural philosophy, so I don't know where you came up with this quote. It was in Newton's time, and it continues to be today, even if the majority of people do not see this thing.

jjw:"Ever since childhood I have been concerned with the lack of an ?overall? scientific category that functioned to bring together all the sciences so we could greatly increase advances that would apply to the many different fields being studied and benefit each other. A formidable task but worthwhile."

While there is no official such science, the cooperation between sciences really exists. Take the Hubble telescope for example. You have physicists, chemists, engineers, etc all working together to make the bloody thing work.

And believe me, as soon as one science finds something worthwhile for another, the other science cannot move fast enough to use the find. Think about ophtalmology in the last decade (and doctors are notoriously incompatible with sciences other than their own and engineering).

This interdisciplinary connection exists, and it works.

Whops! Somehow the logical order of my reply got messed up. Sorry about that.

I think there is a some interdisciplinary communication, but I'm very sure it could be better. I couldn't say how, but I believe it.

Re: various comments to mine:

I must learn to be more exact in my stated views. With Galileo we had an invention to view the satellites of Jupiter and a major step in observational astronomy which up to then was essentially and observation science. Efforts were made to explain what was seen but before Kepler?s geometry, or physics, they were not a common or work a day part of astronomy as I see it. Newton?s laws brought physics as an integral part of astronomical discovery and, as I see it, the potential merging of the two along with all the other creations of academic pursuits relating to space and its contents.

My vague statement that?astronomy (in origin) gave us a pretty picture but it was physics that brought it to life? works for me; albeit a bit too poetic.

Jim Wood