The Ladder

Fundamentally, you can start off with the Standard Model. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty good description of the particles and forces of nature especially at the mostly low energies of our soar system. Using quantum mechanics you can built up those particles into distinct nuclei, and calculate how they can fuse to form new nuclei. Tack on even a rudimentary Newtonian understanding of gravity and you're already able to describe stars from scratch.

Keep going with atoms and eventually things move out of the physics building into the chemistry building as those atoms combine to form compounds. If there's carbon involved you can keep progressing up the ladder of interaction complexity to organic chemistry, and if there's not complicated carbon molecules you can describe inorganic reactions such as those that eventually lead to geophysics, geology, meteorology, you name it.

But those complicated carbon molecules get very complicated and they form proteins. You usually have to move buildings again to this point until you find the biology building. Proteins form organelles of cells, and those cells form plants and animals. Those animals form groups and suddenly you move departments again and you end up in the ecology building. But if those animals happen to be people, they get even more complicated and the tools of analytical science begin to overload with the sheer volume of variables and you have to settle for a phenomenological description, which has its own buildings with names like psychology and sociology.

In theory though, the chain of steps from the Standard Model all the way up is unbroken. Not every step is understood, but for any given science, the one "below" and the one "above" are usually pretty well connected.

So in theory you can start with the quantum mechanics and derive the logistics of a hurricane evacuation. It might take a while.

Regardless of the chain of steps, I'm looking at the end result. Gustav is pointed right at south Louisiana where a lot of my friends are, and its end point actually passes pretty much right over College Station. My apartment's going to be occupied with some evacuee friends for a day or two and this weekend has been a little scrambled with me getting prepared. Here's what the track looks as of this writing (via Weather Underground), though of course as time passes the actual and the predicted may not look the same.

i-c824f1ecbc6c0640a24a0c6253be158a-10.png

So tomorrow and the next day could conceivably not have updates to this site due to the busyness. If that happens, don't worry because I'm unlikely to be dead or anything.

Happy Labor Day (Dirty Jobs marathon on Discovery!), stay safe, and if you're not in the hurricane path now's a good time to think about planning ahead for whatever natural disaster might be in your area's future. Once it's on its way you're usually too late.

More like this

An off-line question from someone at Seed: Fundamentally, what is the difference between chemistry and physics? There are a bunch of different ways to try to explain the dividing lines between disciplines. My take on this particular question is that there's a whole hierarchy of (sub)fields, based…
Having brought in a huge new audience at the end of last week-- partly through the "framing"/"screechy monkeys" things, but mostly because my What Everyone Should Know About Science post hit the front page on Reddit-- I figured I should take this opportunity to... Well, drive them all right the…
Alex Palazzo offers a taxonomy of biologists, and takes some heat in the comments for leaving people out or mischaracterizing subdisciplines. This reminded me that I did a similar post about physics quite some time ago-- almost four years! That's, like, a century in blog-time... I'll reproduce the…
I've remarked several times that I think condensed matter physics gets slighted in public discussions of the field, especially relative to its usefulness. Particle physics gets all sorts of press, but in practical terms, it is essentially useless-- whether CERN or Fermilab locate the Higgs boson or…

I wish you and your friends the best of luck getting through Gustav, it looks like its coming in a lot weaker than Katrina, so hopefully everything goes safely.

I did want to point out that the philosophy of science is divided on whether you can extrapolate from the standard model to macroscopic and cosmic events - there are potentially some systems which are irreducible. For example, I'm not sure whether or not evolutionary laws could be derived from basic physics, or even chemistry for that matter.

I find its most often physicists (of which I am one) who assume everything is reducible, but I'm not entirely convinced (I do admit that I like the idea and it seems like it makes the world of science more tidy, but it may not be true).

I hope everyone makes it through Gustav reasonably intact.

A minor comment on your secondary point:

"In theory though, the chain of steps from the Standard Model all the way up is unbroken."

Moving towards increasing complexity is as problematic as moving towards decreasing complexity in this hierarchy you describe. There are LOTS of theories, and a number of them hold that emergent properties of complex systems can NOT be predicted through the analysis of integral components, just as these same properties disappear if a system is decomposed (making the system "irreducible"). The existence and mechanisms of supervenience have been argued about for at least a few centuries, but a sizable fraction of arguers hold that the chain you describe is really more like a set of isolated lily pads in a really big lake...