Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Example of a theory that was right after 20 years of failures?

  1. Feb 11, 2019 at 3:07 AM #1
    Is there a historical example of a theory that physicists all over the world pursued and developed in a concerted and organized research for more than 20 years without results, but then turned out to be correct?

    I get frequently as an answer the heliocentric vs. geocentric model, it took thousand of years. But I don't think this is a good example since at those times there was nothing such as a concerted global and organized effort and academic as research centers as we have nowadays. Science as we know it was still not born.

    Some others tell me about gravitational waves. But this does not fit with the above question. Gravitational waves are not a 'theory' but a prediction of a theory that was already confirmed.

    Some other again cite the standard model of particle physics. I don't think this is correct, it is a theory that grew throughout the decades, but it turned out to be correct 'piecewise' very soon until it took form as we know it today.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 11, 2019 at 3:20 AM #2

    fresh_42

    User Avatar
    2018 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    I think the helio- versus geocentric model is a bad choice, as geocentrism was based on ignorance rather than unknown facts. Those who wanted to know knew. But how about string theory? That's a concentrated effort for around 50 years now and there is still the possibility it might be "true". Black holes could be another candidate. Their existence changed from crackpottery to everywhere around!
     
  4. Feb 11, 2019 at 3:40 AM #3

    A.T.

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Is there a deeper point here? Or is just a semantic game of dismissing examples based on interpretations of the question.
     
  5. Feb 11, 2019 at 4:11 AM #4

    BvU

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Sure. So you disqualify the Higgs ? And what about Majorana 'particles' ?

    you a law student :wink: ?
     
  6. Feb 11, 2019 at 4:26 AM #5
    String theory still needs to be confirmed or disconfirmed. So, not the example I was looking for.
    Well, yes, geocentrism was based on ignorance. But one must also admit that it was not just that easy to finally proof the heliocentric system to be the correct one. It took a lot of effort to prove it without doubts.
    As to black holes ... well yes... might be an example if we date it back to Laplace. In the frame of GR however it is like gravitational waves. GR is no longer a point in question, some of its predictions needed longer time for final proof due to technological limitations. But the theory as such found very soon confirmation.

    Just trying to find the right semantics (without games) to frame a question.

    Higgs is part of the SM. Have Majorana particles been finally confirmed? No, trying to find out how some dynamics in the history of science goes.
     
  7. Feb 11, 2019 at 5:19 AM #6

    A.T.

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    For a trivia game?
     
  8. Feb 11, 2019 at 5:54 AM #7

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Trivia? Of course not! It's a a semantic game of dismissing examples based on interpretations of the question.

    Marco, if you are serious, put some time into telling us exactly what you mean. Otherwise this will be an endless loop of us providing examples and you swatting them away with a "no, that's not what I really meant".
     
  9. Feb 11, 2019 at 6:11 AM #8

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    Newton’s particle theory of light.

    It does sound like you are trying to find the right semantics such that the answer is a pre-concluded “no”. In other words, you want the answer to be “no” so you are adding enough broad caveats to get the “no” answer by judicious application of the caveats.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019 at 6:33 AM
  10. Feb 11, 2019 at 10:50 AM #9

    CWatters

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Think it took 100+ years to go from the first poor measurement of the Sun - Earth distance to measuring it using the transit of Venus.

    Problem is you can keep measuring it more and more accurately so does it count?
     
  11. Feb 11, 2019 at 11:37 AM #10
    Yes, I suspect the answer is no, because I can't find any example that shows the contrary and that's why I ask. I suspect that if a theory needs more than 20 years to produce predictions that could be verified then it is wrong. But since I'm not a historian of science I'm willing to reconsider this if I find an example that does. The above examples are interesting however, I think that black holes, the Higgs bosons or Majorana particles are not 'theories' but predictions of a theory. I mean a 'theory' that involves some sort of paradigm change and on which the community of scientists worked for a longer time than 20 years without experimental proof but then turned out to be correct. For instance, just to make a not too notorious example (i.e., not the usual qm or relativity), what about classical statistical mechanics? This somehow involved also a sort of paradigmatic change. When did it begin to be pursued (no, I don't think Democritus' atomism is the starting point) and when got it its first empiric confirmation that substantiated it? Maybe I found myself an example?
     
  12. Feb 11, 2019 at 11:43 AM #11

    fresh_42

    User Avatar
    2018 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    I think QCD is an example. However, your restrictions and conditions remain unclear. Your distinction between theory and prediction of a theory sounds quite deliberate. Latest here I would stop reading your article: pseudo philosophical mumbo-jumbo.
     
  13. Feb 11, 2019 at 11:50 AM #12

    TeethWhitener

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Maybe atomic theory? Predicted (though obviously not in its present form) no later than Democritus (~4th century BC), still under debate as late as the beginning of the 20th century. Finally accepted after Perrin's experiments in 1909 confirming Einstein's predictions on Brownian motion.
     
  14. Feb 11, 2019 at 12:15 PM #13

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    If you aren't going to tell us what "counts" and what doesn't, perhaps you could give us a half dozen examples, along with the time scale you think is relevant.

    I'm beginning to think along Dale's lines: you have decided the answer is "no", so you are defining the criteria so that the answer turns out to be no.
     
  15. Feb 11, 2019 at 12:55 PM #14

    BvU

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I vote for Majorana. 1937 !

    [edit]
    If no then no ?
    If yes then no too
    In short: no ?
     
  16. Feb 11, 2019 at 12:57 PM #15

    BvU

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas ?:)
     
  17. Feb 11, 2019 at 12:59 PM #16

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    You were given several examples, including Newton's particle theory of light, which to me is an absolute clincher. But I suspect that you will find some way to exclude it, not because it is not a perfectly valid example, but because you only want a "no" answer and will not accept even reasonable and legitimate "yes" answers.

    However, you did not specifically respond to Newton's particle theory of light, so what is your excuse for excluding that one? Perhaps since no physicists in Antarctica were involved it fails the “all over the world” caveat.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019 at 9:57 PM
  18. Feb 13, 2019 at 8:28 AM #17

    fresh_42

    User Avatar
    2018 Award

    Staff: Mentor

  19. Feb 13, 2019 at 9:16 AM #18

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is not necessarily in bad faith, whatever it may appear. He has a hypothesis, but is not sure what criteria he needs to examine in order to form a theory.

    Think of it as OP trying to find the edge of a moving target. He's trying to find what the longest time a theory can go being dismissed whole still being vindicated.
    His method is to "sample" various historical theories and test whether they fall inside or outside the line.
     
  20. Feb 13, 2019 at 9:34 AM #19

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    Possibly, but it doesn't seem that way to me. He is not "sampling" the theories and including the duration to success as a measurement, but rather he is excluding the data points from consideration altogether. That is a big scientific "no-no", one of the first that they teach as bad scientific behavior.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?