Other forms of movement?

After reading Millers overview of the field of movement theory, I’m left wondering why certain objects are not included in this field. We live in a dynamic universe, in which almost everything is constantly in motion. While only a certain set of actors operate on a human/animal scale and have similar patterns, I wonder if the proposed field of movement theory might benefit from a broader perspective.

Other types of movement might include biological movement on a small scale, such as viruses and bacteria inside the body. On a large scale, geomorphologists examine changes in landscape and the evolution of vegetation patterns over time. Avalanches represent that same type of movement sped up, and glaciers represent it at its slowest. The lines between all these types of movement interact, and while they may operate on different spatiotemporal scales they heavily influence each other.

On the grandest of scales, this phenomenon can be abstracted even further. Planets, star systems, and galaxies all are in constant movement and interact with each other heavily. At a subatomic scale we see a similar dynamism as particles bounce off each other at unimaginable speeds. While we are separated from both these types of movement by logarithmic scales of space and time, they represent the same constant flow we surround ourselves with.

How do researchers decide what types of movement are worthy of being included within the study of movement? Where exactly are the edges of this field? All of these systems interact with each other enormously. While I see the value in having a limited definition of movement that allows for comparison between different biological models of movement, I feel that a grand theory may be difficult to create due to the enormous complexity of the system that surrounds us.

Comments are closed.