Chemistry And Physics

Treated as if they are separate subjects by some, the branches of science called chemistry and physics are so closely related, in fact, that one is only a part of the other, albeit a focused subcategory.  The likes of atomic numbers (the number of protons contained within an element), valence electrons and the bonds they establish, and chemical reactions pertain to chemistry, while physics encompasses all of this, as it all pertains to physical matter, and yet it also deals with the nuclei of atoms--chemistry is about the orbiting electrons around the nucleus rather than the whole of particle interactions--as well as the subatomic particles that nucleons (the protons and neutrons of the nucleus) reduce to and far more.  Yes, the actual existence of such miniscule particles and even macroscopic objects is uncertain since sensory perceptions cannot prove anything but that objects are being perceived, and quantum (subatomic) structures cannot be directly observed anyway, but what follows and does not follow from scientific concepts aside from the epistemology of them, or even whether they are actually true.

At the macroscopic, atomic, and quantum levels, all forms and actions of matter as governed by various forces like gravity or the strong nuclear interaction fall within physics, but not into chemistry, despite both having to do with matter and even the atomic scale of physical substance.  Electrons are just one of the trio of subatomic particles that atoms break down into, and how those electrons are swapped to create anions or cations, otherwise called negatively or positively charged, is what chemistry is concerned with: this is clearly a sliver of the broader scientific paradigms regarding atomic theory.  If science is compared to pages within the spine of a book, chemistry is neither the first of the pages, which would stand in for supposedly elementary particles and their behaviors, nor the last of the pages, which would stand in for phenomena visible without any sort of technological assistance, like weather, objects falling to the ground, or the deterioration of observable matter.

Chemistry does deal to some extent with quantum, or subatomic, physics, though this side of it more strictly involves how the atoms that form chemicals (hence the name chemistry) share or exchange electrons in covalent and ionic bonds respectively.  Since physics is about the material constitution and behavior of all matter, of course chemistry overlaps with parts of its broader nature, as chemistry is but a subcategory of physics.  All aspects of science, in turn, are really just parts of the still-narrow metaphysical domain of the material cosmos constrained by the laws of physics.  Everything physical and all of its properties and actions would inevitably reduce to physics even as physics itself is simply its own subcategory within metaphysics and epistemology, which is not the foundation of either nor the most important aspect of them.

Chemistry, though its laws must be consistent with other laws of nature, does not extend to macroscopic forces like gravity or to the even smaller particles that hadrons, a class of subatomic particles that includes the nucleons, supposedly break down into.  Not all of physics is chemistry, but all chemistry is physics.  Furthermore, chemistry itself gives way to a handful of subcategories of its own, such as the biochemistry of molecules within the living matter of beings like humans, which is itself at times a subcategory of organic chemistry, which has to do with carbon molecules whether they are in living or nonliving matter.  There would also be inorganic chemistry, pertaining to non-living, non-carbon compounds, to list just one additional example.  Still, no matter how precise chemistry gets, it is always a subset of general physics, the one category of science that inescapably contains all the others.  Like biology, geology, and cosmology, which contain their own manifestations of chemistry already, it is impossible for chemistry to be outside of physics, a status reserved for broader metaphysics.

The entirety of scientific phenomena is merely about physical units/objects and how they act in light of each other and the four forces, from the smallest particle to the largest planets or stars.  Philosophical enlightenment is certainly not about physics first and foremost, but not only is physics still relevant to the behaviors of the external world, which itself metaphysically depends on even more vital, preceding things to be mentioned below, but it is not irrational for a rationalist to be subjectively fascinated with physics, or with alleged laws of physics that cannot be verified beyond the veil of subjective perception.  Unlike logical axioms and what follows from them or the existence and contents of one's own consciousness, the only scientific things that are absolutely certain are that one has perceptions of macroscopic phenomena, which might or might not match the true external world, and that certain scientific ideas are logically possible or would logically follow from largely unverifiable premises.  Logic, consciousness, the uncaused cause, and metaphysical space are more foundational than anything pertaining to science, with three of these four things alone being logically necessary prior to the universe or for the universe to even exist at all, but when it comes to the cosmos itself, everything about how it naturally behaves is a matter of physics.  Chemical bonds and changes could only be just one particular aspect of this, not their own wholly distinct, separate side of the natural world.