- #1
bostonnew
- 42
- 0
Hi all,
I was just watching an old Feynman clip. In it, he describes areas where our observations are ahead of our theories (e.g. quasars) as well as areas where our theories are ahead of our observations (e.g. black holes).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OrsaL97Epg&feature=related
I find it really interesting to think about this distinction. My question is if it's possible to say what characterizes physics today more. Lacking theories for which we have observations (e.g. dark matter) or lacking observations for which we have theories (e.g. the Higgs boson)?
Related to this, is it possible to identify a movement in the history of physics, say, from Newton onwards? From absence of theories to explain the observed phenomena. Towards absence of observations to substantiate the theories.
It would be great to get some thoughts on this!
Thanks,
I was just watching an old Feynman clip. In it, he describes areas where our observations are ahead of our theories (e.g. quasars) as well as areas where our theories are ahead of our observations (e.g. black holes).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OrsaL97Epg&feature=related
I find it really interesting to think about this distinction. My question is if it's possible to say what characterizes physics today more. Lacking theories for which we have observations (e.g. dark matter) or lacking observations for which we have theories (e.g. the Higgs boson)?
Related to this, is it possible to identify a movement in the history of physics, say, from Newton onwards? From absence of theories to explain the observed phenomena. Towards absence of observations to substantiate the theories.
It would be great to get some thoughts on this!
Thanks,