• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,064 questions , 2,215 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,734 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  What is “fundamental” in physics?

+ 0 like - 0 dislike

Sorry about the broad question. I'm still learning to frame the questions on Physics OverFlow.

Currently researching the nature of interactions in philosophy.

My question is: When physicists use the term "fundamental", what do they mean?

In philosophy, most seem to claim that to be fundamental means to be the source of causal power. That is, to say that quarks are fundamental means that if we can find exactly how quarks interact, we can explain all phenomena in the world because everything is made up of quarks after all (the behavior of quarks is the primal cause for all phenomena). And philosophers also tend to handpick findings of physical sciences to support this claim.

I sense that this might be an incorrect picture and want to understand what fundamental means in physics to be able to clearly write why we might be using a mistaken notion of fundamental.

Thank you for your patience!

asked Jun 12, 2018 in Chat by anonymous [ no revision ]
recategorized Jun 12, 2018 by Arnold Neumaier

Fundamental means relevant for the foundations of a subject matter.

Since the perception of what are the proper foundations is somewhat subjective, the same holds for the term fundamental. 

@ArnoldNeumaier Thank you for the reply.

1. Would it be correct to say that quarks are more fundamental than atoms?

2. Can we understand it as: within physics, quarks are fundamental while say, in biology, they are not? If yes, would we say it is because they study different kinds of objects? My focus is also on how we classify. This would help in researching that. 

Thank you so much for your guidance! 

@sahanarajan18: What is considered as fundamental depends on the description level.

In elementary particle physics, quarks are fundamental. In nuclear physics protons, neutrons, and mesons are fundamental, in quantum chemistry, nuclei and electrons are fundamental, in molecular biology, amino acids and nucleotides are fundamental. 

There can be two meanings, depending on how we view models in physics. The foundations of a particular class of models are just the parts and concepts from which those models are built up; indeed, insofar as they're mathematical models, the foundations may be definitions and axioms.
The second level depends on how we view the relationship between our models and the real world and on how we view failed theories. There was, for example, a fairly long period when phlogiston was a real thing to scientists, but that idea was eventually discarded in favor of better models; the hard and perhaps impossible question is whether the idea of quarks (or any other idea in physics) is a modern phlogiston or not. A hard-edged realist could say that something is a foundation only if it will never be discarded in favor of something else. I think choices about realism-vs-anti-realism has to be said to be very personal, insofar as one finds both philosophers and physicists taking both sides of this divide (and of course various in-between positions). One thing to research is the "pessimistic meta-induction" (google gives us the SEP page, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/).

@PeterMorgan Thank you for clarifying! It is really helpful to have the SEP reference as well! Will look into them. 

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights