Reddit mentions of Biophysics: Searching for Principles

[Physics PhD, theoretical soft condensed matter physics/active matter]
In short, I think interdisciplinary research is always a good thing. Both sides benefit from different ways of thinking and different methodology, which leads to an even greater understanding.

Long version:
Biology (unlike physics or mathematics) contains an “-ology” suffix, which means it is the study of something, specifically life. Whereas physics is more of way understanding and distilling nature through universal principles, and mathematics is a tool or a language to develop those principles and more. Physics/mathematics and biology meet most commonly when biologists borrow physics/math tools to understand new biology. For example, the use of optical tweezers (part of this year’s physics Nobel prize) to accurately control proteins in the subcellular environment in vivo is a vital tool in understanding vesicle transport (if I’m not mistaken). Or in general, the use of more mathematics to make biology more quantitative may help make biology experiments more reproducible.

A second way biology and physics meet is when physicist use biology as a system to understand new physics of things out of equilibrium (or active), complex/adaptive networks, or living. For example, William Bialek and Jeremy England develop general theories for living systems. Mathematics is used as a language to think about these theories. One of my favorite analogies is, “if mathematics is the language of nature, physics is the poetry”.

As for mathematics and biology without physics, ecology is a field that has been a fruitful endeavor for both math and biology.

Lastly, I’d like to add that biology is not being replaced by physics/math. The goals of the fields are inherently different. But where there’s some overlap in these goals, teams collaborate and even more can be achieved/understood than separately. This is beautiful science.

P.S. Two great textbooks where biology, math and physics (and some chemistry) meet are “Biophysics” and “Physical Biology of the Cell”.

Usually, the equations aren't derived rigorously, and, in fact, can be so unrigorous that theoretical results are merely compared to experimental results (well, obviously, which is the principle of empiricism -> science being science).

For example, from Biophysics, page 40, figure 4.9:
> Results of experiments in which observers are asked to rate the intensity of dim flashes, including blanks, on a scale from 0 to 6... - Alongside an accompanying graph.

And if the OP is reading this comment, I suspect the aforementioned book will be one of the most valuable assets in your life if in fact, you do invest in it (not talking about money of course, rather, time and mental energy).