Are our theories or are observations more advanced?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bostonnew
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    advanced Theories
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the relationship between theoretical advancements and observational capabilities in physics. Participants explore whether current physics is characterized more by a lack of theories for existing observations or a lack of observations to support existing theories. The historical evolution of physics from Newton onwards is also considered in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that there are areas where observations outpace theories, such as dark matter and dark energy, while others highlight theories lacking observational support, like string theory and loop quantum gravity.
  • One participant identifies the Higgs particle as a significant theory currently lacking observational evidence.
  • Another participant mentions phenomena like wetting and friction as observations without credible theories.
  • There is a suggestion that the history of physics reflects a shift from theoretical deficiencies to empirical deficiencies, raising questions about the future acceptance of theories lacking evidence.
  • Philosophical implications are discussed, including the potential support for ideas like Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis, which emphasizes the mathematical nature of reality over empirical validation.
  • A contrasting viewpoint argues that a theory cannot be considered ahead of observation until the observation is made, suggesting that unobserved theories may not hold validity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether current physics is more defined by theoretical or empirical deficiencies, and there is no consensus on the implications of this relationship for the future of theoretical and experimental research.

Contextual Notes

Participants express various assumptions about the nature of theories and observations, and the discussion includes unresolved questions about the validity of unobserved theories and the historical trajectory of physics.

bostonnew
Messages
42
Reaction score
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
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.
 
To my mind, the biggest theory without observation at the moment is the Higgs particle
 
I would add to this list:

Observations without any credible theory: wetting, friction/viscosity, living objects.
 
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:
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.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Dasgupta et al., What is the alternative to a unique dS vacua?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
High School Balancing theories and empirical data, especially concerning string theory
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
9K
Graduate 25 Years of the End of Science (or at least the end of physics?)
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
Undergrad Unifying string theory and loop quantum gravity
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Graduate Higgs inflation and quadratic gravity
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Undergrad Two recent tests of loop quantum gravity theory
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
Admissions Statement of purpose critique request (high-energy theory PhD application)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Graduate "Monstrous Higgs and Leech Spacetime"
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
Graduate MOND Theory Primer: Stacy McGaugh's Research Program Explored
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
Graduate Is Fatio–Le Sage's theory of gravitation an entropic gravity?
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K