Are our theories or are observations more advanced?

In summary: On the other hand, we have observed dark matter and dark energy which are hypothetical, and as long as we have those theories they are "ahead" of observation.
  • #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,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Your point is well taken. It is a mixed bag. Observations with difficult theories: dark matter, dark energy. Theories without observations: string theory vs. loop quantum gravity, multiverse.
 
  • #3
To my mind, the biggest theory without observation at the moment is the Higgs particle
 
  • #4
I would add to this list:

Observations without any credible theory: wetting, friction/viscosity, living objects.
 
  • #5
Thanks,

Any view on what dominates today? Theoretical deficiency or empirical deficiency?

It seems to me that the history of physics is characterized by a shift from the former to the latter. And if this continues it will be more and more normal that we don't have much evidence for what is considered the cutting edge. And perhaps we'll come to see that as completely acceptable.

Practically, this would mean that we should be less concerned with criticism of, e.g., string theory by people like Glashow (e.g. in this interview)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-glashow.html. Perhaps this could also influence how we think about funding of theoretical versus experimental research in physics.

Philosophically, such a development could also be interpreted as support for Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis, or similar ideas that stress the mathematical rather than the physical nature of reality.

What do you guys think?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
  • #6
I don't think you can ever say theory is ahead of observation, because until the observation is made the theory is just a shot in the dark.

For example, we haven't observed the higgs particle yet, and the reason may be because it doesn't exist... in which case no, theory was not "ahead" of observation.
 

1. Are our theories more advanced than our observations?

The answer to this question is not definitive, as both theories and observations play important roles in advancing scientific knowledge. Theories are developed based on observations and help to explain and predict natural phenomena, while observations provide evidence and data to support or refute theories. Therefore, it can be said that theories and observations are equally important and work hand in hand to advance our understanding of the world.

2. Can observations ever contradict theories?

Yes, observations can sometimes contradict theories. This is because theories are developed based on limited data and may not always accurately explain all aspects of a phenomenon. New observations or advancements in technology may reveal new information that contradicts previously accepted theories. In such cases, scientists may modify or even discard existing theories to accommodate the new observations.

3. How do we know which is more reliable - theories or observations?

Both theories and observations are essential in the scientific process and cannot be compared in terms of reliability. Theories provide explanations and predictions, while observations provide evidence. It is the combination of these two elements that allows for the development of reliable scientific knowledge. Therefore, it is important to continuously test and refine both theories and observations to ensure their reliability.

4. Can new observations lead to the development of new theories?

Yes, new observations can lead to the development of new theories. As mentioned earlier, theories are based on observations, and new observations can provide new information or data that may require the development of new theories. This is a continuous process in the scientific community, as new technologies and techniques allow for more detailed and accurate observations, leading to the refinement or creation of new theories.

5. Are theories and observations equally important in all scientific fields?

While both theories and observations are essential in all scientific fields, their importance may vary depending on the field of study. In fields such as physics and chemistry, theories play a crucial role in explaining and predicting natural phenomena. In contrast, in fields such as ecology and geology, observations and data collection are more emphasized in understanding the natural world. However, it is important to note that both theories and observations are necessary for the advancement of scientific knowledge in all fields.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
47
Views
4K
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
898
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
425
  • Beyond the Standard Models
4
Replies
105
Views
10K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
823
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top