In Science what usually comes first - Theory or Experiment

by DrummingAtom
Tags: experiment, science, theory
DrummingAtom is offline
May23-10, 08:03 PM
P: 660
When ideas are being developed what usually comes first? Theory or Experiment?
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on
Physicists design quantum switches which can be activated by single photons
'Dressed' laser aimed at clouds may be key to inducing rain, lightning
Higher-order nonlinear optical processes observed using the SACLA X-ray free-electron laser
Mu naught
Mu naught is offline
May23-10, 08:09 PM
P: 212
I think its about 50/50. Many theories and laws are deduced from experimental results, while often they are derived and confirmed later by experiment.

For example, relativity was completely theoretical while quantum mechanics was almost completely experimental.
arunma is offline
May23-10, 08:29 PM
P: 908
Yeah, I guess it depends. As Mu naught said, relativity is an example of theory coming before experiment. Black holes are another. They were predicted by theory long before we started seeing astronomical images of them. But in my line of work, experiment often comes before theory. For example, the relativistic high energy jets emitted by active galactic nuclei were not predicted by any theoretical model. They were first detected by gamma ray telescopes, and the theorists are now coming up with models to explain their astrophysical origin.

I guess this is another example of how neither theory nor experiment is more important in physics. Both approaches need each other in order for new discoveries to be made.

LURCH is offline
May23-10, 09:55 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 2,507

In Science what usually comes first - Theory or Experiment

I would say observation comes first.
DaveC426913 is offline
May23-10, 10:03 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
tom.stoer is offline
May24-10, 02:26 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 5,307
Quote Quote by LURCH View Post
I would say observation comes first.
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
I think we are currently in a situation were this paradigm changes (even for relativity there were experimental results).

In the context of quantum gravity there are a few theoretcal approaches (loops, strings, ...) which can never be directly tested experimentally. Nevertheless one tries to formulate a consistent theory of quantum gravity. This is required not be experimental results (there is not one single result which forces us to give up classical GR), but due to the inconsistency of the direct quantization of GR + matter interaction.

I know that this is dangerous for physics in general as it may lead to speculative theoretical ideas not controlled by experiments. But I see no alternative but to investigate these approaches further w/o stopping here and come to an end in physics.
Borek is offline
May24-10, 02:39 AM
Borek's Avatar
P: 22,671
I think it changes with time. The more we know the less likely it is to find something accidentally during experimental work. So 200 years ago any experiment could lead to discovery, today it is much easier to predict we may see something and design an experiment around the prediction.
tom.stoer is offline
May24-10, 03:20 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 5,307
You are right, but that's not my main point.

I think that we are in a situation where experimental progress is - due to first principles - not to be expected for quantum gravity. It is not that we know too much about quantum gravity; experimentally we know (nearly) nothing about it. That means we must study a class of theories w/o having ever the chance to set up experiments providing experimental guidelines.

But as quantum gravity is only one rather special topic I will stop now to insist on it.

Register to reply

Related Discussions
Yummy science experiment... General Discussion 5
Grade 9 Science Experiment Help! Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework 4
6th Grade Science Experiment Help Biology, Chemistry & Other Homework 2
Science experiment: density of solvents, more? Introductory Physics Homework 0
science experiment ideas? Introductory Physics Homework 4